Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Hants (Petersfield Division), in the room of Colonel the Rt. Hon. Sir Reginald Hugh Dorman-Smith (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIED GOVERNMENTS (CO-OPERATION).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to make a statement with reference to the setting up of a Joint Allied Council for the consideration of problems of mutual interest, and as a symbol of the international purposes for which the war is being fought?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): As my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal informed the hon. Member on 22nd October last, His Majesty's Government consider that the existing methods for co-operation and consultation with the various Allied Governments and organisations are fully adequate to deal with all questions of common interest which arise.

Mr. Mander: Will the Minister say that he is keeping in mind the possibility at some future stage of an organisation of this kind?

Mr. Eden: I can say nothing about the future, but I am content that matters are going quite well for the present.

Oral Answers to Questions — FREE FRENCH (GENERAL DE GAULLE'S DECLARATION).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the document in which General de Gaulle pledges

himself and his colleagues on behalf of the Free French to give account of all his acts to the representatives of the French nation as soon as it can freely and normally appoint them, has been communicated to the British Government?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the widest possible publicity is given to this very satisfactory democratic declaration?

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement about the position in Tangier and the present state of the negotiations?

Mr. Eden: I had hoped to be able to make a statement this week, but I regret I am not yet in a position to do so. Discussions about various technical matters are, however, continuing satisfactorily both in Madrid and in Tangier.

Mr. Mander: Would it not be a good idea to ask General Wavell to call in there?

Mr. Cocks: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether General Franco has gone to seek advice from Mussolini on that point?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

FACTORY WORKERS (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).

Mr. Daggar: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that a number of men employed at a factory, of which he has been informed, whose wages are £2 19s. per working week of 48 hours, have to pay 12s. per week travelling expenses; and whether he will take steps to make arrangements to meet this expenditure?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): My information is that there are two such cases out of an establishment of considerable size. The question of what assistance should be given in these cases is now being investigated.

ROME (AERIAL ATTACK).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether Rome has at any time been attacked by the Royal Air Force; and whether there are any objectives of military importance that would justify such an attack?

Sir A. Sinclair: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative and to the second in the affirmative.

Mr. Sorensen: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the fact that Vatican City is in close proximity to the city of Rome has some relationship to the avoidance of bombing in that area?

Sir A. Sinclair: I do not think the hon. Member will expect me to deal with such matters in public.

PAY AND ALLOWANCES (NOTIFICATION TO EMPLOYERS).

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will authorise all officers in command of Royal Air Force stations duly to certify on request the rate of pay and allowances of men under their command to any employer who is making up the peace-time wages of their employés who join the Forces, as the withholding of this Service certification to a local authority or other employer dealing with public funds may create a difficult situation?

Sir A. Sinclair: Efforts are being made to resolve the question referred to by my hon. Friend, and I hope that satisfactory arrangements will be concluded shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

NORTH ATLANTIC SERVICE.

Wing-Commander Wright: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether regular communication by air transport across the North Atlantic will be resumed this summer?

Sir A. Sinclair: It is the present intention to provide the facilities referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Wing-Commander Wright: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that this service will be run by the British Overseas Airways Corporation, since this will meet a civil need and it was specially

designated by this House for that purpose?

Sir A. Sinclair: That also is the intention.

BRITISH AIRWAYS.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied that there remains in the British Airways services a sufficient number of experienced navigators to maintain these services in safety?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Simmonds: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that he has said that these services, which are of national importance, will be maintained, and will he therefore see that the temptation to take these navigators for wholly military duties is very carefully watched?

Mr. Granville: In view of the changes in civil aviation in this country, particularly as regards the European and overseas services, will the right hon. Gentleman see that skilled long-distance navigators are given every opportunity to volunteer for the work of ferrying bombers from America to this country?

Sir A. Sinclair: Certainly, we shall make the greatest possible use of skilled and experienced navigators for ferrying machines across the Atlantic. As regards the Supplementary Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds), as I said before, we intend to maintain the existing civil services, but my hon. Friend must bear in mind the urgent requirements of the war. We, at any rate, have to bear them in mind.

Mr. Granville: Can the right ho Gentleman say whether British Airways have in operation a training scheme for navigators?

Sir A. Sinclair: I think the hon. Member might put that Question down.

LIGHT AEROPLANE CLUBS.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Air what role he desires the light aeroplane clubs to fill in relation to our war effort in the air?

Sir A. Sinclair: Before the war, the light aeroplane clubs filled a valuable role in stimulating a general interest in aviation and in helping to build up a potential of


war-time pilots and aircrews. On the outbreak of war it was necessary, for R.A.F. operational reasons, to close down this branch of civil flying, but the resources of the clubs in aircraft, personnel and aerodromes have been and are being used to the fullest practicable extent in the prosecution of the war effort.

Mr. Simmonds: Are we to understand, therefore, that these clubs are to remain permanently closed down, at any rate during the period of hostilities?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir, I think that, in all probability, that will be the case. My hon. Friend will remember that civil flying was prohibited at the beginning of the war under the Air Navigation (Restrictions in Time of War) Order, 1939.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

INOCULATION.

Mr. Leach: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that men who have been inoculated against typhoid fever and paratyphoid fever contract those diseases when exposed to them, as disclosed in reports on the health of the Navy, he will instruct those responsible for granting leave to withhold leave from the inoculated as well as the uninoculated when they visit ports in which there is any danger of infection?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): No, Sir. Although inoculation against typhoid and paratyphoid fever does not confer complete immunity, naval experience shows that inoculated men run much less risk of contracting these diseases than men who have not been inoculated, and that if they do contract them they have better prospects of recovery.

Mr. Leach: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is labouring under a great delusion?

Mr. Alexander: I seem to be in company with a good many skilled medical men.

LEAVE (FREE TRAVELLING WARRANTS).

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any increase has been sanctioned in the number of free railway warrants allowed each

year to naval personnel proceeding on leave?

Mr. Alexander: The number of free travelling warrants allowed each year to officers and men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines going on leave has now been increased from two to a maximum of four for personnel serving afloat. Personnel serving on a T.124 Agreement are also included in this concession.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Will that grant be in any way retrospective?

Mr. Alexander: Speaking from recollection, the leave year starts about 17th October in each year and will, of course, apply from October to October.

DOCUMENTS LEFT IN VEHICLES.

Mr. Ammon: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty in how many instances during the past 12 months have papers and documents concerning his Department been left in, or taken from, private motor cars and Admiralty or other Service vehicles, and how many were recovered?

Mr. Alexander: In the time available I have been unable to trace any instance in which a document has been lost in these circumstances in the past 12 months. I am having further inquiries made, and if any instance of the kind is brought to light, I will inform my hon. Friend.

SHIPYARDS.

Mr. Ritson (for Mr. Batey): asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many shipyards were closed in this country since 1931 by the Shipbuilding Securities, Limited; and how many have been reopened since the beginning of the war?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) on 10th December. My hon. Friend can rest assured that every practicable step is being taken to increase our capacity for merchant and naval shipbuilding.

Mr. Ritson: Is the Minister aware of the facilities that exist?

Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the facilities mentioned.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Is the hon. Gentleman making use of these facilities of which he said he was aware?

Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir. I said that every practicable step was being taken to use these facilities.

Mr. Maclean: There are still some yards shut down.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR-DRIVING TESTS.

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the increase in road fatalities, he will take immediate steps to resume driving tests for applicants for driving licences?

The Minister of Transport (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): No, Sir. I cannot undertake to resume driving tests at present. A number of driving examiners are now serving with His Majesty's Forces, and the remainder cannot he released from their duties in the Ministry's war transport organisation, which in present circumstances must have precedence. Special arrangements are made for the small number of tests required for disabled drivers and tests ordered by a court.

Mr. Green: Does not the Minister agree that he would remove one of the factors leading to the increase of fatalities on the roads?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: There would be a prima facie case leading to that conclusion, but I have never been convinced of it myself.

Mr. Butcher: When the Minister reintroduces driving tests, will he consider introducing walking tests as well?

DOCKERS, LIVERPOOL (FACILITIES).

Mr. Logan: asked the Minister of Transport whether, under the new dock labourers pooling scheme, Liverpool, he is taking steps to facilitate special transport services to and from the outer areas of the city for those labourers registered?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Yes, Sir. The provision of transport facilities for the dockers is under consideration as part of the general scheme.

Mr. Logan: Is the Minister aware that dockers will willingly work all night if

asked to do so, and that the difficulty of food supplies applies to the inadequacy of canteens?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: What I have in mind is that these labour forces must be extremely mobile at any time.

ROAD REPAIRS.

Mr. Salt: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to keep the highways in sufficient repair to avoid such serious deterioration taking place as would hinder their utility and necessitate their reconstruction at a later date at heavy expenditure?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Yes, Sir. That is precisely my aim, and I am doing all I can to achieve it.

Mr. Salt: Will the Minister take steps to retain essential key-men for this important work?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I will do my best.

LONDON WORKERS (SATURDAYS).

Mr. Brooke: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, as a result of the war, Saturday is now a full working day for many Londoners; and whether he will accordingly consult with the London Passenger Transport Board for improvement of transport facilities in the early evening of that day so as to help these workers to get home, including the running of express omnibuses where the numbers travelling warrant it?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Montague): My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that transport facilities for London workers on Saturday evenings are inadequate, but if my hon. Friend has details of any specific case of difficulty, he will be happy to look into it.

FIRE WATCHERS (RAILWAY TICKKETS).

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether the validity of workmen's tickets on the railways will be extended to cover a period of two days for fire-watchers who have to spend the night at their works or offices;
(2) whether he can arrange that workmens' tickets on the railways should be available for fire-watchers proceeding to their duties in the evening?

Mr. Montague: My right hon. Friend is waiting a full report from the Railway Executive Committee upon the issues raised. If my hon. Friend will repeat his Question later, he hopes to be in a position to reply.

SPEED LIMIT (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions took place during 1940 respecting excessive speed in the 20 miles per hour limit area during the black-out?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): From 1st February, when the speed limit was introduced, until 31st December, 1940, the number in the Metropolitan Police District was 2,543. I regret that figures for other parts of the country are not available.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman personally satisfied that this very necessary speed limit is being observed by the great majority of motorists?

Mr. Peake: I think the figures which I have quoted show that the police are making every effort to enforce this speed limit.

ELECTRICITY CHARGES.

Mr. Loftus: asked the Minister of Transport whether, with a view to encouraging the rebuilding in small country towns of factories destroyed by enemy action in large cities, he will consider the reorganisation of the electric supply industry on a national basis, so that the charge for electric power will be uniform throughout the whole country?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: It would not be practicable to undertake a reorganisation of such magnitude during the war.

Mr. Loftus: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that decentralisation of industry will be impossible so long as certain towns are charged eight and ten times as much for electricity as other towns?

Mr. James Griffiths: Is the increased charge for electricity due to the price of coal?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The increased charges can only be partly attri-

buted to the increases in the price of coal. There are other factors, such as repairs, which come into it.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister aware that the price of electricity from local authorities is very much below that of other suppliers?

FREE PRESS (GOVERNMENT ADVERTISEMENTS).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that the free Press in some towns are debarred from having Government advertisements; and what are the reasons for this discrimination?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): No section of the Press is debarred from having Government advertisements. The second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Smith: Does my right hon. Friend ask me to believe that the free Press, circulated in certain towns, is able to receive advertisements? Is he not aware that a considerable correspondence has taken place on this matter between his and other Departments?

Mr. Cooper: I am not quite sure what the hon. Member means by a "free" Press. Does he mean a Press which is circulated free?

Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cooper: Certainly they are entitled to receive advertisements, but advertisements are placed in papers where they are likely to command the widest publicity.

Mr. Smith: Does the Minister appreciate that in some towns the free Press is widely supplied to every householder within the borough, and that it is the one medium which appears to be what most advertisers want? If Government advertisements had been put in the free Press, it is possible that there would not have been so much delay on the part of certain householders in submitting ration cards.

Mr. Cooper: I am quite prepared to look into this question and place advertisements where they are likely to do the most good.

LEEDS HOSPITAL ADVERTISEMENTS).

Major Milner: asked the Minister of Information why he has given instructions that advertisements for dispensers and other employés required by the Leeds Hospital are to be inserted under a box number, having regard to the fact that the location of the hospital is plainly stated in the advertisement?

Mr. Cooper: No instructions of the kind referred to in the Question have been issued. The Press have in fact been requested not to publish information as to the location of military hospitals, and the refusal to accept the Leeds Hospital advertisement except under a box number appears to have arisen through a misinterpretation of this request.

Major Milner: May we take it that it will not occur again?

DOCUMENTS (CERTIFICATION).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Attorney- General whether, in view of the inconvenience, delay, and expense, caused to the public in certain provincial areas of Britain in obtaining certification of a document before a notary public, he will introduce legislation and obtain, so far as is possible, international agreement to render a document sworn or declared before a British magistrate or commissioner for oaths as valid and operative in countries party to the suggested agreement as one similarly completed before a British notary public?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I should be glad to consider any evidence which the hon. Member may like to furnish to me in support of the view that there is in certain areas such inconvenience and expense as suggested in the Question. It is obvious that any alteration in the present law would, as my hon. Friend suggests, require some form of international agreement, which would present obvious difficulties at this time.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Daggar: asked the Secretary of State for War whether is aware that a serving soldier whose widowed mother

receives the customary payment of 18s. per week and to whom the son agrees to devote one half of his recent extra 6d. per day has had 1s. 9d. deducted from his pay; and whether he will state the position of the soldier whose pay is increased because of proficiency or of any other cause.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): When a soldier has voluntarily allotted threepence a day to his mother, a sum of 1s. 9d. a week is deducted from his pay on that account, and his mother receives it in addition to any allowance otherwise payable to her. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing how the amounts which a soldier is required to contribute towards dependants' allowance vary according to his rate of pay.

Mr. Daggar: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it most unfair that half of this 6d. a day is deducted from the payment made to the widowed mother by the serving soldier?

Mr. Law: No, Sir. I do not think it is unfair. No deduction is made from the allowance to his mother, or from his pay unless the serving soldier asks that it should be deducted.

Following is the table:


When the daily rate of a soldier's pay is
Daily rate of contributory allotment.



s.
d.


2s. 6d. but less than 3s. od.
1
0


3s. od. but less than 3s. 6d.
1
3


3s. 6d. but less than 5s. 6d.
1
6


5s. 6d. but not exceeding 7s. 6d.
1
9


Exceeding 7s. 6d. but not exceeding 8s. 6d.
2
0


Exceeding 8s. 6d. but not exceeding 10s. 6d.
2
6


Exceeding 10s. 6d. but not exceeding 11s. 6d.
3
0


Exceeding 11s. 6d.
4
0

OFFICERS' OUTFIT ALLOWANCE.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Secretary of State for War in what circumstances, and when, an extra allowance of £10 is paid for uniform upkeep to officers commissioned since the outbreak of war who have received only £30 for outfit allowance.

Mr. Law: The outfit allowance is given to meet initial expenditure and not for upkeep. The extra £10 is given to those


officers who have received £30, when they are ordered to proceed to a country for which the initial outfit allowance would be £40.

Mr. Liddall: Will this £10 be given again in the case of an officer who, having worn out his first uniform, must buy another?

Mr. Law: No, Sir, there is no allowance for maintenance. It is only for the initial purchase.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: Why are Territorial officers proceeding overseas not allowed tropical kit allowance?

Mr. Law: I will look into that question.

OFFICERS (TEMPORARY RANK, OVERSEAS SERVICE).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether officers holding temporary rank whilst serving in this country are required to revert to their substantive rank on proceeding overseas?

Mr. Law: The retention of acting or temporary rank always depends on whether an officer continues to hold a post for which the rank is appropriate, and this applies equally when he proceeds overseas.

Mr. Stokes: Am I not right in saying that in the last war officers holding temporary rank retained it when they proceeded overseas? Would it not be fairer to allow them to retain their rank at least until they arrive at the other end?

Mr. Law: I think the position is quite simple. An officer retains his temporary rank while he is doing the job for which he was given temporary rank. He will continue in his temporary rank if he is doing the same job when he goes overseas.

CIVIL DEFENCE (FURNITURE ON LOAN).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Health whether he will issue a White Paper explaining the furniture on loan scheme to be loaned to families who have been billeted in empty houses; and how the loan is to be repaid?

Mr. Holdsworth (Assistant Whip): I have been asked to reply. Furniture required for houses which are to be occu-

pied by homeless or evacuated people is supplied by local authorities and normally remains their property. There is consequently no question of the repayment of a loan and my right hon. Friend is not clear what scheme the hon. Member has in mind. If he will send him particulars he will be glad to look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

DISTRIBUTION.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for Mines whether he is aware that coal is transferred from one district to another, and coal is brought in to replace what has been sent out; and will he have investigation made to see if this excessive transport can be avoided?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I am not aware of any cases of the kind described by my hon. Friend which involve a waste of transport, having regard to the needs of the various consuming areas and to the widely different qualities of coal required for various purposes, but I shall be glad to consider any specific instance which he cares to bring to my notice.

Mr. Tinker: If I provide instances where coal has been transferred from one district to another and other coal has been brought in to replace it, will my hon. Friend deal with it and put private enterprise on a better footing?

Mr. Grenfell: The considerations to which I referred in my answer will also require due attention. It is no use to complain of coal being brought in from one district to another if a particular quality of coal is required in that district.

ANTHRACITE (PRICE).

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that in November, 1940, the price of anthracite machine-made washed peas was 55s. 6d. per ton; that an advance of 1s. 8d. per ton was authorised in October; that a further increase of 2s. 9d. per ton was authorised by the Ministry on 1st November; that a 6 per cent. increase in railway rates occurred on 1st December, and that a further advance of 8d. per ton in the pit price was authorised on 1st January, 141; and why the price


of this fuel has been increased by 5s. 1d. per ton, plus a 6 per cent. increase in railway rates since October?

Mr. Grenfell: The increase in price of 5s. 1d. per ton on the South Wales anthracite coal referred to is 2s. 8d. more than the sum of the increased authorised for the country as a whole during the period mentioned. The reasons for the additional increases authorised for this coal were the higher cost of production for machine-made sizes and the reduced proceeds from the sale of duff, due to the loss of certain markets abroad.

EXPORT TRADE.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will take appropriate steps to ascertain the kind of British goods most likely to be in demand in such countries as China and Abyssinia after the war with a view to keeping our industries busy, particularly in different branches of heavy engineering?

Mr. Harcourt Johnstone (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Commercial diplomatic officers are very fully occupied with special duties arising out of the war. They have, however, received instructions to report upon major constructional works suspended owing to the war. In view of the uncertainty which must exist as to the purchasing power and productive capacity in different parts of the world when the war ends, no purpose would be served in trying to estimate what might then be the demand for consumer goods in such countries as my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Hannah: May I take it that the Government have fully in mind the supreme need for keeping our heavy industries busy after the war?

Mr. Johnstone: Oh, yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

ALLOTMENTS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made with additional allotments; whether the progress is in keeping with his anticipation; and what steps will he take to improve the position?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): Our intensive campaign for increasing the number of allotments has been conducted during the autumn and winter months, and the urgency and importance of the matter have been impressed on all local authorities, both by circular letter and by regional conferences throughout the country. The actual results of these efforts cannot as yet be precisely stated, but I have every reason to believe that they will be substantial.

Mr. Tinker: If I put down a Question in a month's time, will the hon. Gentleman be able to give me a more definite answer?

Mr. Williams: I shall be very happy to provide the hon. Member with all the information at my disposal. I hope we may secure the assistance of every Member of the House in making the allotment campaign a success.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the activities of local authorities, and, if not, will he take steps to stimulate them?

Mr. Williams: The conferences referred to were all with members of local authorities, and in the vast majority of cases they were not only sympathetic but enthusiastic.

Mr. Lipson: Is the hon. Gentleman proposing to ask for a return from local authorities of the increased number of allotments?

Mr. Williams: Presumably such returns will be sent in later, but it is too early yet to determine what the actual number will be.

FAT STOCK (PRICES).

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in case of any changes in the prices of cattle, sheep and pigs in future, he will give at least four months' notice of any such changes in order that producers may be prepared therefor?

Mr. T. Williams: It is already the Government's practice to give producers as much notice as possible of future prices for livestock and other agricultural commodities. With this object the prices to be paid for fat stock for the ensuing twelve


months were announced on 31st August last. Modifications are inevitable under war conditions, but the importance of enabling producers to plan ahead is well recognised.

Dr. Little: If a change of prices is contemplated at any time at least four months' notice should be given, as many raisers of fat stock in Northern Ireland suffered considerable loss when a decrease was enforced some time ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

FACTORY SITES, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Sloan: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that extreme difficulty is experienced in securing sites for new industries in the Glasgow area; and will he call for a survey of Ayrshire, which is eminently suitable for industrial purposes, especially those that can be converted to peace-time industry?

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): I am not aware that any difficulty has been experienced in securing sites for Ministry of Supply factories in the Glasgow area. As regards the second part of the Question, I will convey the suggestion to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in considering the matter, remember how much he owes to Ayrshire?

Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman also, in considering the matter, bear in mind the report of the Committee on the Location of Industry, and that the diversion of a large number of new factories to Glasgow is going to recreate the problem which the intensification of industry has created in London?

Sir A. Duncan: I am sure the President of the Board of Trade will bear that in mind.

Mr. Sloan: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember the state of devastation to which Ayrshire was reduced after the last war?

Sir A. Duncan: I am sure the hon. Member will give me credit for knowing something about Ayrshire.

MR. LANDON.

Mr. Daggar: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is prepared to reconsider the case of Mr. Landon, which has been the subject of considerable correspondence and also discussion between his Department and the hon. Member for Abertillery?

Sir A. Duncan: I regret it is not possible to reopen the case to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Daggar: As the reply is very unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

MINERS.

Mr. Sloan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that grave disquietude prevails amongst the mining population of Ayrshire and Dumfriesshire at the scarcity of both rationed and unrationed food; that there is grave danger of loss of output if more nutritive food is not available; and will he now consider the advisability of making some allowance to miners engaged in this work who, because of atmospheric conditions, suffer considerable loss of weight during their working shift?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): As regards sugar, fats, meat and tea, my hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the weekly rationed quantity is the same for all sections of the population. I am not aware of any special shortage of other staple foods in Ayrshire and Dumfriesshire. I would, however, refer my hon. Friend to replies which I am giving to other Questions to-day in regard to cheese supplies for miners and supplementary rations for special classes of workers.

Mr. Sloan: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that some of the mines in Ayrshire are very hot and that there is considerable loss of weight during the working shift? Will he take that into consideration?

Major Lloyd George: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Marshall: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind also that considerable discontent exists among munition workers at the inadequacy of the meat ration and the inability to purchase cheese?

CHEESE.

Mr. Sloan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that cheese is a staple diet among miners, and will he undertake to provide a ration of at least 12 ounces a week to each person employed in the mines?

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the fact that the failure to secure supplies of cheese deprives coalminers of one of the most important foods for the coalmine work; and whether he will take steps to secure a fairer distribution of cheese to coalminers?

Major Lloyd George: As I have stated on previous occasions, the general public has been asked to reduce their consumption of cheese to enable more to be available for those who need it. The present shortage of cheese is due to seasonal factors, accentuated by shipping considerations but my Noble Friend is endeavouring to secure the maximum imports possible. The supplies at present available would not permit of the provision for specific classes, including miners, of an allowance at the rate suggested but the operation of cheese distribution is being closely and actively examined, and meanwhile coal-mining areas are receiving an equitable share of the available allocations.

Mr. George Griffiths: While considering this matter will the Minister bear in mind that a tremendous number of diabetics cannot get cheese, which is one of their essential foods? I have scores of letters about it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the existing shortage and the difficulty of securing adequate supplies of cheese for miners, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider giving a priority ration for miners because nothing else can replace cheese for them?

Major Lloyd George: This question, particularly with regard to what my hon. Friend has in mind, is being actively pursued. There are difficulties. For instance, the ration suggested by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) in his Question would give 15 per cent, of the cheese supplies to 2 per cent. of the population. At the present time the South Wales area is receiving more than the average for the rest of the community.

Mr. Sloan: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that cheese is unobtainable in Ayrshire, and will he consider the complete withdrawal of cheese from restaurants and from the dining room of this House so that a larger ration may be given to such workers as miners?

Major Lloyd George: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have this matter very much in mind and are most sympathetic to the point of view which has been expressed by hon. Gentlemen.

Major Heilgers: Will my hon. and gallant Friend remember that without cheese the agricultural worker's wife is unable to provide the basis of the ploughman's dinner?

Major Lloyd George: That is one of the difficulties we have to face; once we start taking action, every section of labour wants special treatment, but agricultural labour does come in more than miners.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can arrange for a cheese ration to be issued in exchange for a meat ration for those who do not use the latter?

Major Lloyd George: The Food Rationing (Special Diets) Advisory Committee of the Medical Research Council were recently asked to consider the present position of vegetarians and persons on special diets in the light of the restricted supplies of certain unrationed commodities, and their report is awaited. My Noble Friend will bear my right hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

CANTEENS, LIVERPOOL DOCKS.

Mr. Logan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what arrangements he is making to set ma canteens on the line of docks. Liverpool, providing hot meals at reasonable prices for the dockers?

Major Lloyd George: There are already a number of canteens supplying, the requirements of the area to which my hon. Friend refers, but my Noble Friend will be glad to co-operate with the local authorities concerned if an extension of existing facilities is considered desirable.

Mr. Logan: I am asking about canteens for the dockside. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and the Liverpool


City Council do not accept responsibility, and that the trouble we are having with shipping in Liverpool is due to the men being unable to get adequate food at reasonable prices? Will the Minister set up such a system that Liverpool can be the western port?

Major Lloyd George: We expect the local authorities to take the responsibility, but a large part of the financial outlay is furnished by the Government and a good deal of assistance is given for these canteens. We are anxious to see that these facilities are granted and I hope that local authorities will approach us.

Mr. Shinwell: As the question of canteens is closely allied to that of adequate production, would it not be desirable for the Government to accept full responsibility and not leave it in the hands of the local authorities?

Mr. Logan: As I know Liverpool, may I put it to the Minister that this is a matter of the utmost urgency and that the whole system of Liverpool on the dockside will break down unless this arrangement is made? Will he see that such provision is made and that both parties put it into operation?

Major Lloyd George: I am most anxious to see this system extended satisfactorily. I have seen it working in other parts of the country, and it has been acceptable to all who are working it. Therefore, I am in favour of extending it, and if the hon. Gentleman would like to communicate to me what some of the difficulties are, I should be glad to co-operate with him.

MEAT.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that cheese and the full ration of meat valued at 1s. 2d. are unobtainable in several parts of the country; and can he do anything to remedy this?

Mr. McGovern: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the growing discontent in Glasgow at the failure to secure the amount of meat allowed by ration order, and that many families cannot secure their proper amount from the butchers, and in a number of cases no meat has been secured due to a very

severe shortage; and what steps he is proposing to take to remedy this?

Major Lloyd George: I am not aware that consumers in Glasgow are unable to secure their ration allowance of meat from their butchers. I recognise that for a few weeks difficulties have been experienced in the distribution of meat, but I am not aware that at the present time consumers in Glasgow or indeed anywhere else are unable to secure their ration of meat from their butchers. I welcome the opportunity of stating that the amount of meat distributed by the Ministry is in the aggregate after making necessary allowance for wastage in cutting, sufficient fully to meet the ration of 1s. 2d. In addition to this, in the event of any butcher finding himself towards the end of the week short on his ration the Ministry has arranged for a special reserve of canned meat which is, at the discretion of the deputy meat agent in the district, to provide for such special cases. In these circumstances, provided the butcher is carrying out his instructions, there is no reason for any consumer not being served with the full ration of meat. Cheese is in short supply at present, but I have no evidence that any area of the country is not receiving its fair share of the available supplies. Retailers have been advised to spread their sales as evenly as possible from one allocation to three.

Mr. Davies: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that his reply will cause consternation in the country? Will he say, in view of the fact that it is possible to prosecute a butcher who gives more than 1s. 2d. worth of meat, who can be prosecuted if 1s. 2d. worth is not there?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman says that this will cause consternation, but it is about time it was stated that, at any rate as far as the distribution is concerned, the quantity of meat which will provide 1s. 2d. worth has been distributed. If there are cases where people are unable to get their supplies, I shall be grateful if hon. Members will bring them to my attention, because we are anxious that these inquiries should be pursued in the localities concerned.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: How long has the supply of canned foods to augment the meat supply been in operation, because in my district 10d. worth of meat has been the whole of the ration?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot say without notice, but it has been in operation for some time.

Mr. Maxton: While I accept the Minister's word that the supplies have been distributed to the areas, can he assure us that those supplies are distributed equitably among the traders in the particular areas?

Major Lloyd George: It is our object to see that the amount of meal available has been distributed, and it is our duty to see it is distributed fairly. That is why I am anxious for hon. Members to bring to my attention cases of which they know where it is not.

Mr. Leach: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know that anyone well enough off to dine each day at a hotel can get far more than his 1s. 2d. worth of meat, and is it not time that something was done in regard to that?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot accept altogether what my hon. Friend says about that. As a matter of fact, canteens come in the same category as hotels, and what affects hotels affects canteens, which are very important to the working population. An Order will be issued shortly to make it prohibitive to provide more than one rationed dish at a time in restaurants.

EGGS.

Mr. Ritson (for Mr. Batey): asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that householders in Durham City can obtain only one egg per household in three weeks; and whether he will take steps to remedy this shortage?

Major Lloyd George: My information is that although there is a shortage of eggs in Durham City, as elsewhere, the degree of shortage suggested in the Question is not general. Sellers of imported eggs in the City have received their fair share of the available supplies. There is a general shortage of eggs throughout the country, owing to the absence of imported eggs from the Continent, to the reduction of poultry stocks in this country due to the shortage of feeding-stuffs, and to the fact that we have been passing through the season when home production is low. Home production may, however, be expected to increase rapidly during the

next few weeks, although supplies of eggs will continue to be much below normal for the reasons I have stated.

Mr. Ritson: Is it not a fact that quotas were fixed taking into account imported eggs? Also, is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that Durham City is surrounded by areas where many fresh eggs are available, and that because of the shortage of eggs in Durham, these producers suffer very keenly?

Major Lloyd George: I am not certain what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but if it is a fact that Durham City is surrounded by egg producers, it has probably got its fair share of eggs. The position is that a scheme is in operation to encourage the distribution of eggs to industrial areas.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones (for Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara): asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the prices fixed for eggs are uneconomic to the producer when his feeding costs are considered; and whether he will make a statement on future policy in this connestion?

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies given on 5th February to my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and Howdenshire (Colonel Carver).

COMMERCIAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOOD.

Mr. G. Griffiths (for Mr. Collindridge): asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the gentleman recently appointed Commercial Secretary to the Minister of Food has ceased to have financial interests in concerns supplying foodstuffs?

Major Lloyd George: With my Noble Friend's full concurrence, the Commercial Secretary to the Ministry of Food has not relinquished the directorships he previously held. Since the outbreak of war, however, he has ceased to take any active part in connection with his pre-war interests in regard to foodstuffs and has given full-time service to the Ministry, without remuneration, as Director of Bacon and Ham.

PUBLIC LUNCHEONS, GLASGOW.

Mr. Maxton (for Mr. McGovern): asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the


Ministry of Food the number of luncheons held at City Chambers, Glasgow, since food rationing began where rationed foods have been supplied; and whether, in view of food shortage, he will take steps to abolish the use of rationed foods at all such public luncheons?

Major Lloyd George: I am informed that three public luncheons have been held in the City Chambers, Glasgow, since 8th January, 1940, and that 95 per cent. of the food served was unrationed. I see no reason to take action regarding such public luncheons.

Mr. Maxton: Would the Minister consider whether it is possible for coupons to be surrendered at such gatherings?

Major Lloyd George: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the whole of that question has been under consideration, As I have already said, the question goes far beyond this kind of luncheon.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Will it be carried out in the Dorchester Hotel if it is carried out at Glasgow?

Major Lloyd George: That is just what I said. If you carry it out in restaurants, it includes all canteens, and therefore the question has to be very carefully considered.

SUPPLEMENTARY RATIONS.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is now prepared to reconsider the decision not to allot supplementary or priority rations of certain foods to those engaged in heavy work?

Major Lloyd George: I am unaware that as a general rule there is any difficulty in obtaining the prescribed quantities of rationed food, though there may be occasional local delay on account of unforeseen circumstances, such as abnormal weather conditions. My Noble Friend has given careful consideration to the question of supplementary rations for special classes of workers, but has decided to adhere for the present to the principle of allowing the maximum possible ration for all consumers rather than a supplementary ration for particular classes at the expense of other consumers. The possibility of improving the distribution of unrationed foodstuffs is at present being closely and actively examined.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman undertake some kind of survey to discover whether, where rations are not being supplied in good quantities to heavy workers, it is having an effect upon production?

FRUIT, GLASGOW.

Mr. Maclean: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will have an investigation made into the practice of fruit importers in Glasgow determining which firms with retail shops shall be classified as wholesale merchants; and whether he is aware that this practice enables multiple shop companies to purchase at wholesale price and sell direct from their shops to the consumer at the controlled price, thus making a double profit and defeating one of the objects of control in fruits and vegetables?

Major Lloyd George: The aim of the Ministry is to distribute imported supplies through the usual channels of trade. If my hon. Friend has reason to think that this is not being done in any area and will send me particulars, I will have them investigated.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the returns made by wholesalers include amounts of food that are sold by them retail?

FISH.

Mr. Maclean: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is causing inquiry to be made into the methods of fish sales in the various fish markets in the country, as, owing to the demand for fish caused by the reduction of the value of the meat ration, fish prices have become prohibitive to large numbers of the people?

Mr. McGovern: asked the Parliamentary, Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the following prices were being paid for fish on Monday, 3rd February, at Messrs. Sawyers, fishmongers, 89, Union Street, Glasgow, namely, filleted haddock, 4s. 9d. per lb., codling, 4s. per lb., filleted sole, 4s. per lb., boneless finnan haddock, 2S. 10d. per lb.; whether he is aware of the grave discontent concerning his failure to end this exploitation of necessary foodstuffs; and will he fix a substantially lower price forthwith and impose heavy penalties for any evasion of a controlled price?

Major Lloyd George: My Noble Friend has told the trade that the prices of fish are too high, and within a limited time expects to receive their proposals.

APPLES (PRICES).

Mr. Maclean: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why the Order giving maximum prices for home-produced apples which came into force on 26th December, 1940, fixed the maximum wholesale price at 50s. 2d. per cwt. from 20th January to 16th February, 1941, inclusive, and a later Order alters the maximum wholesale price up to and including 16th February, 1941, to 42s.; whether he is aware that such rapid alterations in price and during periods previously fixed is causing confusion in this trade; on whose advice such changes are made; and whether he will make an investigation into this matter with a view to greater stability in price and also quantity?

Major Lloyd George: The figures quoted by my hon. Friend from the Apples (Home-produced) (Maximum Prices) Order (1940, No. 2121) and the amending Order (1941, No. 106) are not comparable, inasmuch as the former figure includes charges for carriage, while the latter is exclusive of such charges. The object of this amendment was to encourage the flow of apples to more distant markets. My Noble Friend is not aware that the amendment has caused any serious confusion in the trade. In answer to the latter part of the Question, the amendments were made by my Noble Friend after consultation with representatives of the trade, and he cannot agree that any useful purpose would be served by special investigation into this matter, but particulars of any disturbances with which my hon. Friend can furnish me will receive careful consideration.

Mr. Maclean: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware of the disturbance that is caused by rapid alterations in prices in food markets, where traders who have bought goods forward at one price subsequently find that Orders have been issued fixing reduced prices, which means that they are faced with a heavy loss? Will he go into the matter to consider whether such rapid changes in controlled prices is not inclined to disorganise some of the trades?

POTATOES, NORTHERN IRELAND.

Dr. Little: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, as there is abundance of high-grade potatoes in Northern Ireland, he will make arrangements for the purchase of as large a quantity of these as possible for table use and seed purposes in Britain?

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Press statement on this subject issued last week on my Noble Friend's behalf by the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. I am informed that the announcement referred to has given satisfaction to potato growers in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Little: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to see that these potatoes are taken up as early as possible, as we want to be in a position to prepare the fields for the next crop?

Major Lloyd George: I will certainly look into that point.

NATIONAL DEBT.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will show in all future returns issued by the Treasury the cost of management of, and the interest on, the National Debt as separate items?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): Full details of the cost of the management of the Debt are shown separately in the annual Finance Accounts. Payment is actually made to the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland on 5th April each year, and no practical advantage would result from showing that figure separately in each weekly Exchequer Return for the remainder of the year.

CARDBOARD GOODS (PLANT, SCOTLAND).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that there is idle plant in Scotland for the manufacture of all kinds of cardboard boxes and other paper and cardboard goods, abundant supplies for which are available in Scotland; that the appropriate personnel is unemployed; that samples of such goods required by Government departments are available for


inspection only at Edinburgh; whether he will see that such samples are made available in Glasgow; and what steps he proposes to take to encourage Government departments to place orders for such goods in Scotland?

Captain Crookshank: I am making inquiries on this subject, and will communicate further with the hon. and learned Member as soon as I can.

LIVERPOOL DOCKERS (PAY-DAY).

Mr. Logan: asked the Minister of Labour, in conformity with his Liverpool dockers' pooling scheme, whether he is prepared to arrange an earlier pay-day than Saturday so as to enable the wives to have shopping facilities?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): This question of an alteration in the payday at the Liverpool Docks is one of the matters at present under consideration by the parties concerned.

Mr. Logan: Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to put into operation such a system as is referred to in the question? Is he not aware that Liverpool dockers' wives will not be able to get food supplies at all if such an arrangement is not put into operation?

Mr. Tomlinson: I think the hon. Member can take it that the Minister will be quite prepared to accept the arrangement provided that agreement is reached between the parties concerned. May I further say that this question is under—I think the official term is—very active consideration?

Mr. Marshall: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any assurance that the principle of staggered pay-days is under consideration in industry generally?

Mr. Tomlinson: That is another question.

EMPIRE PEOPLES (USE OF TERMS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the resentment felt by representatives of African peoples in this country at the usage of the term "nigger," he will make representations to the British Broadcasting Corporation, and elsewhere, to avoid this term being used?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): I am confident that the B.B.C. and the Press of this country will entirely agree with my hon. Friend's view that terms which are likely to give offence to any peoples of the Empire should be avoided. The matter has been brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Information.

NORTHERN RHODESIA (COPPER BELT).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet able to indicate a date for the publication of the Report on the dispute in the North Rhodesian copper belt and whether he can make any statement, in view of the lapse of time, as to whether the recommendations of the Commission are acceptable to the companies operating in the copper belt or to the Northern Rhodesian Government?

Mr. George Hall: Yes, Sir. The report, together with a statement indicating the action which it has been agreed between the mining companies and the Northern Rhodesia Government, should be taken or the recommendations contained in the report, will be published by the Government of Northern Rhodesia on Tuesday next, 18th February. Copies of the report and of the statement, together with a summary of the findings and recommendations of the Commission, will be laid in the Library of the House on the same date. The report will be placed en sale in this country as soon as further copies arrive from Northern Rhodesia, and will be obtainable from the Crown Agents for the Colonies in due course. Copies of the summary of findings and recommendations and of the Government statement may be obtained from the Colonial Office after the report has been published.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the report be made available to all Members of this House, without the necessity of buying it from the Crown Agents to the Colonies; and, in view of the very considerable interest in this report, will the Colonial Office continue to exercise the utmost pressure on the Labour Department of the Northern Rhodesian Government for the improvement of wage standards and general conditions of the African workers?

Mr. Hall: As to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, we had better wait until we see the work which has been done by the Rhodesian Government in obtaining the concession which has been made by the mining companies. On the question of the report being made available for Members, there is a difficulty, owing, as he knows, to the fact that these reports are published by the Northern Rhodesian Government. We hope to have sufficient copies available at a nominal price for those who are interested in the matter.

COMMODITY INSURANCE SCHEME.

Mr. Culverwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the long delay in settling claims for damage under the War Risks Insurance Act, 1939; and will he authorise payments on account pending the final settlement of such claims?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): As has already been stated in this House, special measures have been taken to minimise delay in dealing with claims under the Commodity Insurance Scheme, and arrangements are in operation for payments on account to be made, pending the final settlement of claims. All claimants are now being informed of these arrangements.

Mr. Culverwell: While thanking my hon. and gallant Friend for his reply, and appreciating the pressure which is upon his Department owing to the claims which are made, may I have an assurance from him that the Department is utilising to the full the experienced staff of the insurance companies?

Captain Waterhouse: Yes, Sir, those staffs are being used to the full, and their help is much appreciated.

Mr. Woods: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what percentage of claims has been paid?

Captain Waterhouse: Not without notice.

WAR AND PEACE AIMS.

Mr. Martin: asked the Prime Minister whether consultations on peace aims and

reconstruction have taken place with the Government of the United States of America; and whether he can give the House an assurance that, before any statement is made outside this country, His Majesty's Government will inform Parliament of their policy?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): There is such a thorough comprehension in the United States of what we are fighting for and what we stand for that I can recall no occasion when the question of peace aims or reconstruction has been mentioned by any of the representatives of the American Government I have seen or corresponded with. I can certainly give the House no assurance about statements which may be made about war aims outside this country, or indeed inside this country outside the ranks of the Government. Statements of British policy will be made by His Majesty's Ministers on such occasions as seem agreeable to the public interest.

Mr. Lindsay: Does my right hon. Friend realise that much of the woolly talk about peace aims would be satisfied if either a brief statement were made, or no statement were made at all, so that there would be no doubt about it?

Sir A. Southby: Can the Prime Minister put that Supplementary Question among the woolly statements that are being made?

Mr. G. Griffiths: Can the Prime Minister make the statement at Nine o'Clock on Sunday night? It would be a very good job if he did.

The Prime Minister: I think I must be allowed to be the judge.

RUMANIA (BRITISH MINISTER AND STAFF, RECALL).

Mr. Lees-Smith (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement of the reasons for the withdrawal of His Majesty's Minister and his staff from Bucharest?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps I may best answer the right hon. Gentleman's Question by quoting from the text of the Note addressed, on my instructions, by His


Majesty's Minister at Bucharest to the Head of the Rumanian Government.
It is as follows:
It has become abundantly evident that this country's Government which you have directed for six months has become entirely dependent on Germany. Not only actual facts but also numerous statements published by yourself confirm this. Some months ago you informed me that a small number of German troops were arriving in Rumania in order to instruct the Rumanian Army in modern methods of warfare and that the necessary equipment was likewise being despatched from Germany for the re-armament of the Rumanian troops. Some instruction has no doubt been imparted, but the essential development is that the German High Command is building up in Rumania all the elements of an expeditionary force, and is concentrating at various strategic points large supplies of munitions and oil fuel. Rumanian territory is thus being used by Germany as a military base in furtherance of her plans for prosecuting the war. These measures are being taken without one word of dissent from you. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have decided to recall me and to withdraw the Diplomatic Mission and the Consular officers under my control.

Mr. Cocks: Do we regard Rumania as an enemy country?

Mr. Eden: I would like the hon. Gentleman to be content with what I have said.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not Rumanian concurrence with Germany's militaristic plans amount to a declaration of war against this country, and do we not challenge that?

Mr. Eden: I have chosen the words of this Note, which was sent on my instructions, with some care. I prefer to leave it there.

Mr. Lipson: Do His Majesty's Government propose to ask the Rumanian Government to withdraw their representatives in this country?

Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that the war materials which we supplied to Rumania have been "pinched" by the Germans?

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Evelyn Walkden, Esquire, for the county of York (West Riding) (Doncaster Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House, the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill may be considered in Committee immediately after the Bill has been read a Second time."—[Mr. Attlee.]

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (ESTIMATES, 1941).

Estimate presented,—for Civil and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March, 1942, with Memorandum [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 44.]

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1941 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).

Estimate presented,—showing the several Services for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1942 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 45.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to the Consolidated Fund (No. I) Bill, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. Tinker: There is a point on which I would like to ask a question. On the first page of the Bill, in Clause 3, there appear the words:
The Treasury may borrow … any sum or sums not exceeding … one thousand, six hundred minion pounds,
and overleaf it goes on to say:
Any money borrowed otherwise than on Treasury Bills shall be repaid, with interest not exceeding five pounds per cent. per annum.
I understood that this House had decided not to pay interest to that extent, and I want to know from the Chancellor why five per cent. is specified. Taking this figure of £1,600,000,000 at one per cent., it will equal £16,000,000, and at 2½ per cent. it will be £40,000,000, which I claim is all that ought to be paid on borrowed money. When this comes before the House, we are entitled to know what is meant. Does it mean that the Treasury will have power to pay interest up to five per cent. and that this House, after passing this Measure, will have no voice at all on the restriction of interest? In a crisis like this the time has now come when, money having to be borrowed, people who have the money ought not to expect interest to that extent. In fact, if I had my way, I would take all the wealth without paying any interest, just as the Government conscript human life. When five per cent. is put into a Bill, we are entitled to know what it means, and before the Bill is passed I want the Chancellor to assure us that not more than 2½ per cent. will be paid on borrowed money.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It would be in order to raise in this Debate any question dealing with this expenditure, but I understand that it is the desire of the Government to facilitate the passage of the War Damage Bill. Therefore, I do not want to say anything that may prevent the Government from getting that Bill through the House as soon as possible.
It is a well understood procedure of this House that before any Supply is voted the grievances of the people should be ventilated in the House. Therefore, having this week-end attended several meetings where representative and responsible people have been present, and having listened to their grievances about rationing and about the transport of work-people in industrial centres in particular, I hope that when another Consolidated Fund Bill is put before us there will be an opportunity for those legitimate grievances to be ventilated in a Debate in this House. While not desiring to labour this aspect of the situation at the present time, I trust that in the future the Chancellor and the Government will take notice of what has been said in regard to it.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I would like to raise one point. After the large amount of money which has been voted by this House, and after the wonderful response which has been made to the appeals of the Chancellor and of Sir Robert Kindersley for money to be given or lent to the Government, are the Government really taking the necessary steps to see that this money is wisely and economically spent? I know that very important committees have been set up, but they have no power to punish malefactors who waste public money and who are dishonest in the carrying out of Government contracts. Cannot the Chancellor devise some more rapid means of dealing with waste and extravagance, and will he not allow serious charges to be made the subject of a judicial inquiry, presided over by a Judge, where witnesses can be heard and cross-examined and all parties be represented by counsel? One of the greatest assets the Government have to-day is the confidence and support of the whole country, but I feel that unless some drastic action is taken to ensure that public money is wisely spent, that confidence may be impaired. Will not the Chancellor consider that matter?

Sir Frank Sanderson: I cannot agree entirely with one expression used by my hon. Friend opposite, though possibly he used it inadvertently. I have nothing to say in regard to his assertion that extravagance is taking place, but he went on to say that industries which were dishonest could not be punished. That is a reflection upon industry which. I am


sure the whole House will agree, industry does not deserve. I would like to ask my hon. Friend whether he could see his way to withdraw that remark?

Sir W. Smithers: I am sorry if I have given that impression. It was not my intention. But all Members of the House must have received many allegations of waste and extravagance in regard to Government contracts. I make no general assertion of that nature, and all I would ask is that the Government should take up these cases and deal swiftly with them.

Sir Percy Harris: I hope that those Members of the House who have discovered cases of alleged waste and extravagance will immediately approach the Select Committee or its Chairman on the subject. I can say, on behalf of the Committee and with knowledge of its work, that either they or the sub-committees will investigate such allegations.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am indebted to my hon. Friends for what has been said. The House will remember that when I introduced the Votes of Credit I made a special reference to the importance of dealing with this matter, and I then pointed out the work that the Select Committees of the House were in fact doing. I also stated that if any instance were brought forward, either by the Select Committee or by anyone else, I would be only too willing, in conjunction with the Departments concerned, to make any necessary investigations and decide what had to be done. I know my hon. Friend has one case in mind which is now being considered by the Select Committee, and when he hears what they say about that case we shall be in a position to decide whether it is necessary to do anything further.
As far as the figure of 5 per cent. referred to by my hon. Friend opposite is concerned, that is the ordinary stock form which I understand is always used. I think he will agree that one of the features of finance during the war has been the comparatively low cost at which we have been able to make our arrangements, and I can assure him that we have every intention of continuing to do so. I hope no-one will think that there is any intention on the part of the Government to deviate in any way from what has been

done already. I have no doubt that many hon. Members will observe that we have gone on those lines in our recent proposals, and have given no encouragement to anyone to think that by withholding money from the State they will receive a higher rate of interest. That is not our policy; we are determined to continue the present policy, which I think has been generally accepted by the House and which, of course, has been in considerable contrast to the finances of the last war. I am glad, therefore, to be able to reassure my hon. Friend as far as that is concerned.

Mr. Maxton: What is the point of putting in an unreal figure?

Sir K. Wood: It is put in probably as a measure of caution. I have not had notice of that point, but I understand that the figure forms part of the form of words which has always been used.

Mr. Maxton: Always? Since when?

Sir K. Wood: I cannot say exactly when, but that, I understand, is the explanation. So far as my other hon. Friend is concerned, I am sure he will recognise that we shall give full opportunity to anyone desirous of bringing grievances before the House.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Perhaps when the Chancellor is going into the question of dishonesty it might be useful if sometimes the Treasury turned their eyes inwards and not outwards. Many of the things which are attributed to dishonesty or to sharp practice in industry are really based upon the lack of supply, which means a burden on the Exchequer. It would be a very good thing if the Chancellor could look into the question from that aspect. I cannot adduce any figure, for I have no general knowledge of the subject, but the Chancellor might, for instance, look at the amount of money being spent in various factories on what is known as idle time. Nobody wants idle time; the employer does not want it, certainly thou workpeople do not want it—they want to get on with the job and earn their money—and idle time cannot always be traced to mismanagement, dishonest conduct or to lack of potential service on the part of the workpeople. It can, however, be


traced to lack of co-ordination of the supply of material, which means the spending of money to keep the workpeople at their benches, and I hope the Chancellor will look at it from that point of view.

Sir F. Sanderson: The Chancellor has not made any allegations of that sort.

Sir Richard Acland: I apologise for not speaking on the previous occasion when this Bill was before the House, but I was somewhere else at the time. I am now going to put to the Chancellor certain observations on the whole finance of the war, and I wish to give him notice that I will seek to develop the matter when we come to the Budget. It is alleged that the Government have some measure of control over property which matches the control exercised over labour. I am certain that, for financial reasons, the Government have no control whatever over property except the power to buy property at its full price or lease it at its full rent. That means that when the Ministry of Mines, for example, would like to get control of some of my timber, in order to make pit-props, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must step in and say, "Oh no; you cannot do that, because if you take this timber, within six months' time I shall have to put into his hands so much purchasing power, which he will be able to exercise over the whole range of the nation's unrationed purchasable commodities." For that reason, the Chancellor of the Exchequer over and over again has to forbid other Government Departments exercising that control over property which they would like to exercise.
I give one other example. I understand that the transport of coal was held up because a great many trucks were filled with steam coal which could not be exported. If that was coal which was not being bought and which would not be bought, the logical thing would have been to have chucked it over some high bank on to a piece of derelict land so that we might get the use of the trucks. But if that had been proposed, the owner of each truck would have said, "My truckload is one of the loads that is about to be sold to a British factory, which needs steam coal. Therefore, put into my hands, now, the full cash value of that truck-load of coal." He could then exer-

cise a demand to that extent on the country's consumable goods. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to forbid the Minister of Transport to sling out that useless coal, in order to get the use of the trucks.
This is the point which I make to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Before he can grapple with the problem of controlling property at all, he will be compelled to adopt the principle of deferred compensation. That is to say, if the Government take over two or three houses belonging to a widow, houses which represent all her life savings, and from which she is deriving, say, £3 a week, the Government will pay her £3 a week; but if they take over the timber which belongs to Sir Richard Acland, they will ask him: "What other sources of income have you?" If he says, "I have so-and-so, or such-and-such," they will then hand him a ticket, indicating so many acres of larch or of spruce, and they will say to him, "Present that ticket at the end of the war, along with all the other people who have lost their lives or their limbs or their husbands or their wives, and we will do something for you but we cannot promise what it will be." Once you have done that, then you have control over property but, until then, you have no control over property except, as I say, to buy it at the full price or lease it at the full rent.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I wish to bring the Debate back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not feel offended if I say that I did not like the slick manner in which he dealt with my hon. Friend's point. Indeed I have often felt that, on other questions also, the right hon. Gentleman tries to "get away with it," merely by saying that he is considering or will consider this, that or the other. One must, frankly, face the fact that he has put the figure of five per cent. into the Bill for some reason. He tells us that it has been put in only because it is customary. Then he tells us that we must not draw the conclusion that five per cent. will ever be paid; that the Government do not intend to pay it, and that those who may be holding up money in the hope of getting a higher rate of interest later, need not do so, because they will not get any higher rate than is being


paid to investors at present. That is no reason for retaining this figure in the Bill. The very fact that it is in the Bill will rouse hopes somewhere that it will be paid at some time, and if the Chancellor has no intention of paying more than three per cent., he ought to say so. I feel sure that in the Committee stage of the Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh will move an Amendment and, if necessary, divide upon this issue. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us more substantial reasons than he has given up to the present for retaining the figure of five per cent. in the Bill.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Resolved,
That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Power for the Treasury to borrow.)

Mr. Tinker: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out "five pounds," and to insert "two pounds ten shillings."
After the discussion which we have just had, I think we ought to test the feeling of the Committee on this matter and ascertain whether it is desired to retain the figure of five per cent. in the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was never intended to pay five per cent. but added that this figure was carried on from one Bill of this kind to another, according to a recognised custom and that it had not been thought wise to make a change on this occasion. In times like these, however, when the country is watching very closely what we do, if the figure of five per cent. is put into the Bill, it will convey the idea to many minds that the financiers are making a good thing out of the war. If it is not considered necessary to have this figure in the Bill, then why should we not be as honest about it in our thoughts as we are in our speech and substitute some other figure? I have suggested 2½ per cent. for this purpose because that is the amount

of interest which is paid to poorer people, generally, on their savings in the Post Office. If it is regarded as a fair figure for the invested savings of the poor—money which is probably more honestly earned than the money of the great financial interests—then, at least, we ought to provide that no one else should get any higher rate of interest. I do not think that anyone, even among hon. Members opposite, believes that anyone ought to receive more than 2½ per cent. on money lent to the Government at the present time. In fact, I question whether people ought to get even that figure, but I recognise that orthodox finance is very difficult to break down and that we have to go stage by stage. This Amendment proposes a step in the direction of letting the public understand that invested money is not to receive the high rates of interest which it has received in the past. I intend, if I get any support, to test the feelings of the Committee on this matter and therefore if my Amendment is not accepted, I shall press it to a Division.

Sir K. Wood: I shall he quite prepared to amend the figure to £3, in order to meet the situation. As has been said, this figure of £5 has been inserted in the Bill in accordance with the practice that has been followed for many years; but if the hon. Member is prepared to accept the figure of £3, I am quite in agreement.

Mr. Tinker: In that case, I will certainly withdraw the Amendment, and move another Amendment, to make the figure £3.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Tinker: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out "five," and to insert "three."

Mr. Bellenger: It seems to me that the way in which we are conducting our business in the House of Commons at present is most slipshod. On the Bill that we are shortly to discuss again, we have had nothing more than nods and winks from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now, on this Bill, when the Chancellor is challenged he first makes the lame excuse that he has been following the traditional way, and then, on being pressed, he comes down to bargaining with my hon. Friend. Those slipshod methods will not suit this House or


this country. If the Chancellor means £3 to be the figure, let him put it into the Bill and come to this House with it properly. We are losing confidence in the Government because of their way of conducting business.

Sir Irving Albery: I should like to recall that several years ago I moved an Amendment similar to that which has just been moved by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). The Labour party were in office at the time, and I got no concession. Their answer was that this had been the stereotyped figure for years and years, that it was a mere formality, and that nothing could be done about it. In the present case, the figure of £2 10s. would have been inadequate, as there must he some margin. On the other hand, I agree with the figure of 3 per cent. That gives a small margin.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGE BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 11th February.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 47.—(Limitation of indemnity provided under private chattels scheme.)

Amendment proposed [11th February], in page 37, line 34, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 13, page 38, and to insert:

"(a)Subject to the provisions of this Section where, after such date as may be prescribed, any person resides in the United Kingdom, then, if at any time, in respect of private chattels which are insurable in relation to him under the private chattels scheme, there is not in force a policy of insurance issued in accordance with that scheme in respect of his chattels or a sum not less than the value thereof for the time being, as hereafter prescribed, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Section;
"(b) Any person guilty of an offence under this Section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds and to a further fine not exceeding fifty pounds for every day on which the contravention continues."—(Mr. Rostron Duckworth.)

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

Sir Herbert Williams: It will be remembered that the last hour of yesterday's Sitting was a somewhat difficult period, and towards the end of it the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement which I thought encouraging, and which delighted me. When I read it this morning, however, it sounded not quite so good. No doubt, in the meantime the Chancellor has given some consideration to the point that many of us made, that there should be a serious effort to introduce a compulsory scheme, in order that the risks might be fairly distributed and a more reasonable premium fixed. If the Chancellor is able to give any assurance, now that he has considered this matter further, it seems to me that it would be wise for us not to consider the bulk of the other Amendments to this Clause. If we are to have a new Clause, it would be waste of time to consider all these Amendments. I say that on the optimistic assumption that the Chancellor is going to make more concession to us than he was prepared to do yesterday.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I will say a word about the proceedings on the Bill generally, and also deal with the point that my hon. Friend has raised. I have been accommodating on every possible point, and I hope that no one will be unduly critical of my attitude towards Amendments which have been moved. I think it will be seen on the Report stage that I am dealing with many of the suggestions that have been made. I am anxious, particularly in view of the Business for the next Sitting Day—the household means test—to complete this stage of the Bill to-day if possible. That is desirable, for a number of reasons. I have still to give consideration to various points which have been raised in Committee. We must get on with the Report stage as quickly as possible. I also wish to get the Commission, with its very extensive machinery, set up as soon as possible; and to have the authority of the House to make the advances which have to be made under one of the Clauses. Therefore, when I say that I hope we shall be able to finish with the Bill in Committee to-day, I am not making an idle request without reason.
I think that when this one matter which we are now discussing has been disposed of, we shall really have dealt with the main considerations on the Bill. The other matters—for instance, the Clauses to be introduced by the Government—are not, I think, matters of considerable controversy. Although the task may look formidable, I think it may be well within our power; and if we achieve this, we shall not have to rearrange the business.
With regard to this Amendment, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I have given further consideration to the matter, in the light of yesterday's discussion. We had a conference with our advisers as I was naturally anxious to be able to say something further to-day. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and others stressed the position of those with incomes below the income limit which apply to the present system of free grants for essential furniture and clothing. We recognise that we have, in some way or other, to dovetail the existing system of Exchequer grants into the insurance scheme for chattels, and in the light of the discussion that we had last night, I think I can say that we believe it will be possible to devise arrangements which will provide for people within those income limits to cover their chattels for a reasonable amount. My right hon. Friend and I are satisfied that it will be possible to come to some reasonable arrangement.
As regards the question of compulsion, we still feel—and I will be perfectly frank with the Committee—that there are still formidable arguments against, and obstacles to, a compulsory scheme. They have not been put forward either by myself or my right hon. Friend simply from the point of view of objecting to a compulsory scheme. I think that hon. Members will realise that, from the point of view of the Treasury, for instance, the more money that we were able to get into this scheme the better it would be for the Exchequer, but as I indicated yesterday there are real and formidable difficulties. On the other hand, I recognise the substantial feeling and the very strong grounds that could be urged in favour of a compulsory scheme, and which, indeed, were advanced by hon. Members in all parts of the Committee yesterday, and I undertake on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself again to examine the

matter with an open mind. There is no prejudice as far as I am concerned at all; I only want to do the right thing and evolve something which is workable and practicable. We will examine again with an open mind the arguments and the suggestions which were advanced in different parts of the Committee, and other suggestions which we had under consideration last night. I do not want to be open to charges that I am simply saying that the matter is under consideration, and thereby putting it off by uttering a few pleasant words or giving a smile, and, therefore, I would emphasise the difficulties of the situation. Obviously this Bill is being very largely formulated and framed by the House, as we shall see on the Report stage, and we will look at this question from that point of view. In any event, we will endeavour—and I can say this much more positively—to make this scheme more attractive from the point of view of encouraging a large number of people to take advantage of it.
If we are obliged to adhere to the voluntary scheme—which will be very considerably affected by the arrangements we have in mind as far as the people below the income limit are concerned—then, we must make the scheme much more attractive than it is at the present time on the lines I have already laid down.
I hope that the Committee will be satisfied with what I have said, and in the circumstances, follow the suggestion which has just been made by my hon. Friend that we should leave the remaining Amendments to this Clause and allow me to examine the position in conjunction with my experts and advisers, and to confer, if necessary, with some of my hon. Friends. It is not an easy matter to devise a scheme, and if some of my hon. Friends will consult with the insurance experts they will receive confirmation of what I have said. I will, as always, I hope, be ready to consider the matter, and I trust that in these circumstances the Committee will rest upon the assurance that I have given and allow us to leave this portion of the Bill in the light of that undertaking, so that we can confer between now and the Report stage.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry to have to enter a slight caveat as the result of what my right hon. Friend has just said. May I, without disrespect to the Committee, call attention


to what occurred yesterday? There were only some 70 Members in Committee out of a House of 615, and there were some 10 or 12 Members like my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) who were greatly in favour of this proposal. I have never listened to a proposal with which I was more fundamentally in disagreement than that which he put forward in his speech. I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. There were some interruptions, but the arguments which he gave against the compulsory principle in respect of this particular Clause constituted as strong a case as could possibly be put from either the Front Bench or this bench. My right hon. Friend referred to consultations between himself and hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and if there are to be any consultations before the Report stage, other hon. Members who have taken a prominent part in the Debate will request to be consulted.

Sir K. Wood: Certainly.

Earl Winterton: I want to say a word on the question from the point of view of the insurance company. I have been connected with an insurance company for thirty years, except during the time when I was in office, and I can say that it does not affect an insurance company in one way or the other; it does not matter to them. But some statements were made in the Debate that were calculated to make insurance experts fly up in the air—they were of such an extraordinary character. One was that it is easy for any number of policies in time of war to be worked out by any Government department.

Sir H. Williams: Sir H. Williams rose.

Earl Winterton: I will certainly give way, but my hon. Friend made no attempt—because he did not listen to the speech—to answer the point which my right hon. Friend had made.

Sir H. Williams: What my Noble Friend does not quite understand is that the ordinary insurance company produce a policy containing reams of stuff in very small type, and introduced for the purpose of dealing with frauds as they may arise. If you have a statutory scheme of insurance, the terms of the policy are in the scheme, and all you have

to do is to put in the name and the amount.

Earl Winterton: May I commend my hon. Friend to the simple proverb, "Do not teach"? I probably know as much about insurance as he does. I do not want to raise any further controversial issues, but I certainly hope that my right hon. Friend will not, in order—for the most meritorious purposes with which we all agree—to get the Bill through as quickly as possible, concede a principle, which, in the opinion of his advisers, should not be conceded. What we all want to see is voluntary insurance made more attractive; there I think we can all agree. I am fundamentally opposed to compulsory insurance of chattels—I do not propose to argue this—and the only reason that I have risen is to make the statement that, if there is to be a fundamental alteration—because it is a fundamental alteration that is proposed in this part of the Bill, involving a tremendous rearrangement and perhaps delay in putting the Bill into operation—I hope there will be full consultation, and that other hon. Members who are in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon will have something to say on the Report stage.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: May I ask the Chancellor whether his promise to the Committee includes a promise to investigate the basic value?

Sir K. Wood: Certainly.

Sir Irving Albery: So far our Debates have been conducted in harmony, although some of us have on occasions disagreed with the Chancellor, but I do not think the contribution made by the Noble Lord who has just sat down will tend to expedite matters.

Earl Winterton: Whether it does or not. I say it is the principle that matters.

Sir I. Albery: Some of us feel very strongly on this question.

Earl Winterton: So do others on the other side.

Sir I. Albery: It is generally held—and I think rightly—that if property is destroyed by enemy action, it is the responsibility of the State to provide compensation for those citizens who suffer as a result of that action. Under the present difficult circumstances the State has


rightly found it necessary to put on a special form of taxation as a contribution towards expenditure. I listened carefully to what the Chancellor said, and I read his speech of yesterday, and if he will forgive me for saying so, one is obliged to come to the conclusion that there is very little hope of his coming down on the side of compulsory or universal insurance. In my view, no scheme is any good unless it brings in everybody. Even accepting the Chancellor's suggestion that most people will come in, all argument against the possibility of a universal scheme falls to the ground. What is the difference if three-quarters of the population or all the population are insured? That is not a vital difference in a question of machinery. I have not gone into the question of policies, but I am quite convinced that any scheme carried out will not involve the writing of any policies. We have National Health Insurance and all kinds of universal schemes, and if they can be carried out, I cannot see why this too should not be universal.
Unless we know whether the Chancellor will adopt a universal scheme, we must continue to discuss the Clauses relating to the business scheme. I feel strongly on this matter, and I do not think I should be right if I did not stick to my convictions. Here to-day we have a National Government and a National Parliament, and if Members do not stand by their convictions and, if necessary, vote against the Government, it does not mean any lack of confidence in the Government, still less in my right hon. Friend, who, I know, has worked very hard and spent a lot of time on this Bill. It simply means that it is desirable that, in the interests of the nation and especially of the National Government, where a difference of opinion is voiced and, if necessary, taken to a Division, the Government will know what is the real feeling of the Committee.

Major Milner: I am sure we all agree with the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery), because it is the essence of democracy, for which we are supposed to be fighting to-day, that we should come to our decisions by the methods adopted in this House if there is a difference of opinion. I know that the

Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has taken a great interest in this Bill and that we agree on many points, but I was surprised to hear him say that he was quite satisfied with the explanation given yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade.

Earl Winterton: What I said was that the right hon. Gentleman had given an overwhelming answer against the case put forward.

Major Milner: I think the opinion of the great majority of Members of this Committee is that the right hon. Gentleman did not give an overwhelming answer. In point of fact, he put up a number of dummies and proceeded to knock them down. For example, the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the ordinary question of fire insurance for furniture. I think 90 per cent. of those who own furniture worth £100 or more have such a policy, and, therefore, there is not the slightest difficulty in taking that policy as the basis for the great majority. The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with that at all. There can be no difficulty whatever in insisting that this fire-insurance policy should be taken as the basis of value of goods for which the owner would be prepared to pay a premium before this Bill came into existence. The Noble Lord spoke of writing 2,000,000, 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 policies, including long lists of furniture and this, that and the other. Nothing of that sort is in our minds. It is, I imagine, merely a matter of handing out something in the nature of a ticket, just as the millions of wireless licences, many thousands of dog licences and many hundreds of millions of War Savings Certificates are written out by the post office.

Earl Winterton: It is ridiculous.

Major Milner: It is intended to assess the damage after the event, and, if that be so, there would be no difficulty at all in issuing something in the nature of a ticket. The whole Committee has endeavoured to make this Bill a workable proposition. Our Debates have been conducted in the happiest fashion throughout, and I pay a tribute to the way in which my right hon. Friend has endeavoured to meet us. I do not think one should cast a stone at one who, impressed by the volume of opinion in the Committee, goes a consider-


able distance indeed to meet that opinion. I think the Chancellor should be congratulated and thanked for it. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend has in mind now some proposal which will follow the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), whereby each class of those owning furniture of a comparatively small value should be dealt with by paying a fixed sum.

Earl Winterton: No.

Major Milner: That is what I understood, but I do not press the point. I should have hoped that it might have been possible to extend the present scheme, which many people regard as giving free insurance at present to all those whose incomes are less than £400 in one case and £250 in the other, but which in fact guarantees only the replacement of what are, in the opinion of those administering the scheme in practice, essential goods, which would mean the payment of a very small sum of money indeed. I hope the Chancellor will give thought to the question of having something in the nature of free insurance for all those below certain income limits, but if that is not done I hope the amount to be paid by way of premium will be a small one, within the means of all those who might be affected, and that it will even be payable by instalments. In any event, if the large class of persons to whom I have referred could be completely insured—for we must insist on that—then, clearly, it would much simplify the operation of the Bill when it becomes an Act.
In this Bill we have to endeavour to obtain two things—first, that every person owning chattels is insured, for as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh has said, there are at present quite serious gaps in the scheme; and secondly, that all contribute in proportion to their interest in the scheme and that all contribute to provide the means to recompense those whose goods are damaged. If the Chancellor will ensure that those two principles are carried out, he will go a long way to meet us, and it may well be possible then to come to an agreement on the Bill. Notwithstanding what was said by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham, I feel certain that in practice it would not be more difficult to carry

into effect a scheme on these lines than it is to carry out many other schemes that are in force in this country. If the right hon. Gentleman will ensure, in particular, that the great majority of the workers in this country get insurance either free or for the smallest possible payment, I think there will be no complaint from any quarter that he has not done everything possible to meet us in difficult circumstances.

Sir Percy Harris: I suggest to the Committee that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made a most sensible and practical proposal. It is very important that the Bill should be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible. Neither those who want the Clause amended nor those who, like the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), would prefer the Clause to remain in its present form, would be committed if the Chancellor's suggestion were followed. As I understand it, the Chancellor is prepared, between now and the Report stage, to meet hon. Members who are interested in the Clause.

Earl Winterton: Hon. Members on both sides.

Sir P. Harris: Hon. Members on both sides, both the Noble Lord and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). The Chancellor's suggestion is that there should be consultations and that an effort should be made to knock into shape a new Clause of a practical character. If we were not satisfied with that Clause, then we should reserve the right on the Report stage to move Amendments and, if necessary, to vote against the Chancellor's Clause.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: After listening to the speeches that have been made, I find myself in this difficulty. The right hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said that, after consultation, a new Clause could be drafted and that all rights would be reserved for the discussion of Amendments on the Report stage. But no hon. Member knows what Amendments will he accepted on the Report stage, and that is a very important matter. If the Chancellor's suggestion is followed, it will mean, in effect, that the initiative in amending the Bill will pass from hon. Members to the


Chancellor. If we part with the Clause now, there is no guarantee that any Amendment by any hon. Member can be moved on the Report stage, and the only Amendment that can be moved will be one from the Government. Suppose that the Chancellor, after consideration, decided against the extension of this insurance to make it universal, then, unless Amendments were called by Mr. Speaker, the only way open to us to make our views known would be by rejecting the Clause, which would be of no advantage. If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would guarantee that, in the event of his deciding against those hon. Members who believe that this part of the Bill should be made compulsory, the Clause would be recommitted, so that the initiative in putting down Amendments would remain with hon. Members and not pass to the Chancellor, I should be prepared to accept my right hon. Friend's suggestion.
If we part with the Clause now, and if the Chancellor's decision, after consultation, is that lie cannot make this part of the Bill compulsory, hon. Members will not have any opportunity on the Report stage of reversing that decision, short of voting against the Clause, and possibly wrecking the Bill. I believe that this part of the Bill should be made compulsory, and I am reluctant to part with this Clause without voting against it, unless we can get some more definite and concrete assurance from my right hon. Friend. It is no good his saying that be will consider the matter and that it can be gone into on the Report stage. That is not enough. The Clause would have to be recommitted, so that we should have an opportunity to put down other Amendments and discuss those Amendments which are now on the Paper but which will not be discussed if we give the Chancellor the Clause now. Therefore, in view of the difficulty which would arise on the Report stage, unless the Chancellor accepted the principle of compulsion, I suggest that he should reconsider his statement, amplify it a little, and give some further guarantee to the Committee.

Sir K. Wood: I am in the hands of the Committee with regard to the Report stage. I may be wrong, but I do not think it would be impossible for my hon. Friends to put down Amendments on the

Report stage. In any case, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) would be in exactly the same position then as now. If there were a Division now, I should have to ask the supporters of the Government to stand by the Government and accept my advice in the matter. My hon. and gallant Friend would then have the pleasure of voting against the Clause, but from the point of view of getting a workable Bill, that would not help very much. It would not be in the spirit in which we have conducted these proceedings. My hon. and gallant Friend has not been here very much—

Sir A. Southby: That is a very unfair statement. I would remind my right hon. Friend that it is quite possible he would be beaten in a Division.

Sir K. Wood: I will withdraw the personal remark. As far as I can see the issue as to whether this part of the Bill should be compulsory or not could be raised just as easily on the Report stage as now, and on the Report stage hon. Members would be in a much better position to decide how to vote in the light of the consideration which I should then have given to the proposals and the consultations I should have held. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that, no doubt, the whole matter could he raised on any Amendment which might be moved on the Report stage, but obviously, it would be better for consideration first to be given to these proposals by the Government. I would also remind the Committee that in the end the Government have to take responsibility in this matter. Directly the Committee comes down on one side or on the other, the Government have to take a very serious responsibility. If I said that, in view of all the discussions, I thought a compulsory scheme would be right, I should have to be absolutely assured of that, because I should have to take the responsibility of administering the scheme. On the other hand, if I said I was sorry, but that in the circumstances it could not be done, again, I should have to be responsible for the administration of a voluntary scheme. Therefore, in the end the Government are bound to take responsibility in this matter, and the responsibility cannot easily be put on the


shoulders of private Members. I hope that hon. Members will be assured by the undertakings I have given. I know my hon. Friends feel very keenly on this matter, but we will endeavour to do the best we can in the circumstances, in the light of the consideration which has been given to this matter. I shall approach the matter with an open mind because my only concern is to get a workable scheme which will be practicable and helpful to the community.

Sir Waldron Smithers: In view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appealed to the Committee not to raise any further Amendments on this Clause, would it not simplify matters if he gave an undertaking and said that this Clause would be recommitted?

Sir K. Wood: I am afraid I could not do that.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Many sensible things have been said during this Debate, and the Chancellor has, I think, put forward a quite reasonable proposal. The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) is possibly confusing procedure under a Finance Bill, where it is impossible on the Report stage to move certain Amendments. It is quite true that there is rather more restrictive power, but I do not think any Speaker would rule out an Amendment which was expressing the will of a large part of the House. I have been a Member of the House of Commons for a good many years, and I have never known the Speaker to rule out a discussion on such an Amendment, unless, of course, it was out of order. Therefore, the hon. and gallant Member can rest assured that there will be an opportunity. I can only add that there would be no good in pressing this matter to a vote, because only those who did not want to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer time to look at the matter again could vote against the Government. Therefore, I hope that at an early hour the Committee will consent to take the course which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed. I am exceedingly glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may adopt the idea, which is certainly not my own, although I put it forward yesterday, of taking out of the scheme that numerous body of people who fall within the £400 and £250 limit. The

great difficulty, which the President of the Board of Trade has clearly foreseen, is that we are dealing with an enormous number of householders.
The proposal which I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing to consider, or at least to which he seems favourably inclined, is to remove from the 13,000,000, or whatever it may be, 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 straight away. What is really required if we are to have anything like a universal scheme, is to try and handle the considerable number of people still left. I would suggest that upon whatever basis the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers it may be possible to work this proposal, he should take some conventional basis—lots of them have been put forward, and there are lots which he can consider—and assume that everybody comes in, and that where a person's circumstances render him, in his opinion, inapplicable to come under that conventional basis, then his position might be separately considered. I do not know whether that is possible, but I throw it out as a suggestion. Under the present scheme we are calling upon everyone who wants to come in and trying to settle the amounts and get out the insurance policies. I suggest that we could get away from a great deal of that on the assumption that most people do want to come in and will come in on a conventional basis. We should then be left with a much smaller number of people who objected to that who would want to come in on some other basis. It is the question of numbers which will present difficulties. I do not think anyone would object to the conventional basis—the premiums would only be a few pounds—particularly in war-time, when we reflect that this is a rough and ready scheme. In that way we might get rid of the numbers, and we should be left with a very small number, which would make the thing easier to handle. I hope that it will be looked into, and that the Committee will accept the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Woodburn: I listened very carefully to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal. He has convinced me that we ought to dispose of this matter to-day and not leave it to the Report stage. If we cannot convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President


of the Board of Trade to-day, I do not think we should revive all our arguments again when we come to the Report stage. If we agreed to-day to a scheme of compulsion, it would involve the job of reconstructing the machinery which would delay the whole scheme. I do not follow all the arguments which were put forward yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade. In his opinion, there was a lot of difficulties which might arise; but if everyone approached the framing of a Bill by simply looking for the difficulties, there would be no Bill at all. I can imagine thousands of difficulties, but if half our time was spent in finding out how to solve them as they arise, we should then have a scheme which would work on a reasonable basis. If the President of the Board of Trade will forgive my saying so, I think that a good many of his examples were oddities and not general. The very fact that he had to take the exceptions proves the points which we have been trying to make. It is not a question of compulsion for its own sake but an all-in insurance scheme which is wanted.
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade assumes that if everybody was insured, there would be up to 12,000,000 policies to write out. His argument meant that we do not want everyone to insure because we shall have more policies to write out, and that the fewer people who insure the fewer policies there will be. Therefore, if no one insured, there would be no policies to write out. Either there are going to be policies, or there are not going to be policies, and if 13,000,000 people are voluntarily to insure, the problem will still remain the same as if they were compulsorily insured. These difficulties have to he got over. I can see the difficulty of saying to-day that this must be a compulsory scheme and that the Chancellor will have to set up an entirely new scheme. I would make this suggestion to the Chancellor. He could give a pledge that, if the matter cannot be settled between now and the Report stage the Commission, when it is set up, should, as one of their additional tasks, review the whole question of all-in insurance and then, when the next period comes along, this scheme could be brought in.
But there are simple ways of dealing with the main part of the problem, which

is to replace the homes of the industry outside as well as inside, and if you insure the homes of the country on an essential furniture or chattels basis, that gets rid of nine-tenths of the problem. The odd ones can be left to a voluntary scheme, and that would satisfy most of us who have been raising the matter, and it would bring most people in. The Noble Lord delivered a speech which, I thought, might have been delivered on the Second Reading because, if he objected to compulsion, the compulsion is in the first two parts of the Bill, and I do not recollect his delivering anything like so vigorous a speech when they were discussed. While we enjoyed his vigorous contribution to the Debate to-day, it was rather a surprise to us that he should plunge into this discussion and suggest that he has all along been opposing compulsion when the first two parts of the Bill were definitely compulsory.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Member seems to suggest that anyone who dares to support the Bill is introducing heat. I was merely supporting it, and shall do so, however hon. Members may object.

Mr. Woodburn: I am sorry to be misunderstood, but the vigorous and heated way in which the Noble Lord attacked the principle of compulsion seemed not to refer to this, but to other parts of the Bill. I am satisfied that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to consider all that has been said and go into the matter in a sympathetic way to endeavour to find a solution on the principle of all-in insurance, and that if it cannot be done during the passage of the Bill, he will give a pledge that when the Commission is set up, it will be its business to find out from experience whether it will not be more satisfactory at a later stage to make it all-inclusive. That will obviate rushing us and rushing him, and it will give time for consideration. This is not the law of the Medes and Persians and experience will be beneficial to him, and perhaps to us. I leave the suggestion with him as a possible way out.

Sir I. Albery: I think, in all the circumstances, we could not fairly ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say more than he has said. He has promised to approach the whole matter with an open mind. The only difficulty that remains is that I do not quite know how he proposes to deal with the remaining Amend-


ments on the Clause. If we are to debate them without knowing what is to happen eventually, it will be rather a waste of time, and we are all anxious to expedite the Bill.

Sir K. Wood: I suggest that hon. Members should leave their Amendments. If I come to the conclusion that I can make changes, I will put down Amendments myself. In any event, if hon. Members are not satisfied, when we come to the Report stage they will be able to move Amendments themselves. I do not think there are any Amendments here which it would not be possible to consider on Report, but it would be convenient to see the Government's Amendments on the Paper and it may be that hon. Members will be satisfied with what we propose.

Sir Joseph Lamb: The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to what I said yesterday about his repeated statements that he will give consideration having become a classic. That was no reflection whatever on him personally, because I realise as much as anyone, the great efforts that he has made to try to get the Bill through and to assist the Committee. My statement was made simply to enforce my argument for prior consultation with individuals and associations representing interests that are affected. I am in favour of the compulsory side. That is my ideal, but a policy cannot be an ideal unless it is practical. Consequently, I am asking that he should give the ideal of compulsion as much expression as he can in a practical way in the Bill. I am entirely in agreement with the undertaking that he has given that we should defer the matter to a later stage of the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Woodburn: I have a small point to raise here. Assuming that the Bill is to be a voluntary one, representations have been made to me that there is great dissatisfaction among those who will have to earn their living by collecting premiums with the 2S. 6d. per case to be paid them. Evidently they regard it as not providing a living wage. If this is to be a scheme based on collectors going from door to door, I should like to ask, when the

details are being worked out, that the remuneration of the people involved should be taken into account.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I cannot see what relation this has to the Clause.

Mr. Woodburn: If the scheme is voluntary, there must be a method of collecting premiums.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think it comes under the Clause.

Mr. Woodburn: Perhaps the Chancellor will look into it?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, I will.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 48 to 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 53.—(Meaning of "prescribed.")

Amendments made:

In page 39, line 32, after "any" insert "class of persons or."

In line 32, after "the," insert "persons or."—[Mr. Lyttelton.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 55.—(Insurance under Part. II of War Risks Insurance Act, 1939, of certain goods.)

Motion made, and Question proposed: "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Woodburn: I have two Amendments down to this Clause, and I should like to try—

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Member will have noticed that the Chancellor has given an indication that this Clause is to be recommitted. Therefore, it is not worth while discussing Amendments to the Clause.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 56.—(Provisions in policies limiting indemnity.)

Amendment made:
In page 40, line 42, at the end, insert "and in subsection (3) of that section for the words


'the last preceding subsection,' there shall be substituted the words 'subsection (2) of this section'."—[Mr. Lyttelton.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 58.—(Miscellaneous Amendments.)

Amendment made: In page 41, line 33, at the beginning, insert:
() Sub-section (3) of Section eleven shall have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, as if after the word 'insured' there were inserted the words 'or re-insured.'"—[Mr. Lyttelton.]

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lyttelton): I beg to move, in page 42, line 8, to leave out from "following," to the end of line 22, and to insert:
Sub-sections;—
'(4) Where in the course of any business a ship is being, or has been, constructed under contract, and the ship or any part thereof or any goods appropriated for the construction thereof would not, apart from the provisions of this Sub-section, be deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act to be owned by the person from time to time carrying on the business, but—

(a) would, apart from the said provisions, have been deemed for those purposes to be so owned at any time; or
(b) have at any time been accepted, in pursuance of a contract made with him, by the person from time to time carrying on the business,

the ship, part or goods shall for the purposes of this part of this Act be deemed, in a case to which paragraph (a) of this Sub-section applies, to continue to be owned by the person from time to time carrying on the business until the acceptance of the ship, in pursuance of the contract in question, by the person for whom it is being, or has been, constructed, and in a case to which paragraph (b) of this Sub-section applies, to be owned by the person from time to time carrying on the business at all times between the acceptance referred to in the said paragraph (b) and the acceptance of the ship as aforesaid by the person for whom it is being, or has been, constructed.
(4A) Where in the course of any business any part of a ship is being, or has been, constructed under contract, not being part of a ship which is being, or has been, constructed by the person from time to time carrying on the business, and the part of the ship or any goods appropriated for the construction of that part would not, apart from the provisions of this Sub-section, be deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act to be owned by the person from time to time carrying on the business, but—


(a) would apart from the said provisions, have been deemed for those purposes to be so owned at any time; or
(b) have at any time been accepted, in pursuance of a contract made with him, by the person from time to time carrying on the business,

the part of the ship or goods shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act he deemed, in a case to which paragraph (a) of this Sub-section applies to continue to be owned by the person from time to time carrying on the business until acceptance of the part of the ship under the contract in question by the person for whom it is being, or has been, constructed, and in a case to which paragraph (b) of this Sub-section applies to be owned by the person from time to time carrying on the business at all times between the acceptance referred to in the said paragraph (b) and the acceptance as aforesaid of the part of the ship by the person for whom it is being, or has been, constructed.
(4B) Where the person from time to time carrying on a business receives any money, under a policy issued in pursuance of the commodity insurance scheme, in respect of damage to a ship, part of a ship or goods which are deemed to be owned by him by virtue of Sub-section (4) or Sub-section (4A) of this Section, the money shall he held by him on trust for the person who apart from the provisions of those Sub-sections would be deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act to be the owner of the ship, part or goods, subject, however, to any lien or charge which would otherwise he enforceable against the ship, part or goods and subject also to the right to retain out of the money the amount of any expenses reasonably incurred by the first-mentioned person in making good any part of the damage which he is liable to make good.'
This is a very complex Amendment. Where a shipbuilder has sub-contracted part of the work the Amendment provides that the property, supposing the subcontractor delivered his material to the shipbuilder, should be insured by the latter until delivery of the ship to the shipowner. The third Sub-section reproduces with modifications the proviso that Section 15(4) of the War Risks Insurance Act. The shipbuilder is treated as the owner so that he may be able to insure; where he is not in fact the owner, he is to hold the money recovered under the insurance policy as trustee for the real owner.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 42, line 26, leave out Sub-section (4).—[Mr. Lyttelton.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask the Lord Advocate whether he is satisfied that the many representations which have been made to me by Scottish authorities have been properly considered? I have received a large number of representations from my constituency on these points and some private assurances that they are being considered. Can the Lord Advocate say what has been done to meet the views that have been expressed with regard to terminology and so on?

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I think that I shall be able to give a fuller answer to the hon. Gentleman when we reach Clause 69, which is the Scottish application Clause. I can now give him a complete assurance that all the representations that I have had have not only been considered by ourselves but discussed with strong committees of the Faculty of Advocates and the Legal Society in Scotland. The proposals which I shall shortly move on Clause 69 represent in substance the unanimous views of the legal authorities as to the solution of the difficulties with which we were faced.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 59.—(Definition of "war damage.")

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, in page 43, line 19, to leave out from "result," to the end of line 23, and to insert:

"(i) of any precautionary or preparatory measures taken under proper authority with a view to preventing or hindering the carrying out of any attack by the enemy; or
(ii) of precautionary or preparatory measures involving the doing of work on land and taken under proper authority in any way in anticipation of enemy action.

being, in either case, measures involving a substantial degree of risk to property.
The purpose of the Amendment is to bring the definition of "war damage" in the Clause into closer relationship with what the Prime Minister stated was inherent before the Bill was introduced. That was the necessity of drawing a distinction between what was war damage caused by a bomb and what was consequential and indirect damage. This Amendment rearranges the paragraphs in order to make that clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 43, line 26, at the end, to insert:
Provided further that the expression 'war damage' shall be deemed to include damage to a hereditament consequential on the repair of the damage referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this Sub-section not having been executed if the Commissioners are satisfied that such repair could not reasonably have been executed.
I move this in order to get some assurance that the consequential damage will be allowed for in some part of the Bill.

Sir J. Lamb: This deals with a point covered by Amendments in my name. I am speaking on behalf of the County Councils' Association when I say that they wish to have a clearer definition of the kind of damage. The Bill refers to "direct damage done." That may mean only damage attributable to enemy action or to precautions taken by the Government. It does not say anything about damage done by weather. If there were a row of houses with the windows out or the roofs damaged and it was not possible for the occupier or owner to have them repaired, considerable further damage might be done to the property by the weather, over which he has no control. We think that that damage, which is "attributable," should be included in the damage done, and an Amendment which I put down to exclude the word "direct" would, I think, have covered that particular point. Perhaps the Minister will refer to it when he speaks and tell us what is the attitude of the Government. I have no intention of protecting people who are negligent, after damage has been done to their property, by not protecting it to the best of their ability. I put clown another Amendment which safeguards that position by providing that the compensation would not include any increased damage which had arisen through the negligence of the individual.

Major Milner: I hope that the Financial Secretary may be able to give an assurance that the expression "war damage" will include deterioration due to weather. We all know of cases in which, for various reasons, property cannot be repaired, but it seems to me that on a strict interpretation of the wording of the Bill consequential damage and deterioration might conceivably not be included in the compensation. I am not altogether sure that my hon. Friend's Amendment is quite wide enough. It provides that the expression


'war damage' shall be deemed to include damage to a hereditament consequential on the repair of the damage referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
What he has in mind, I think, is deterioration consequent on the non-repair of the hereditament. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can accept the principle of the Amendment it can, no doubt, be reworded on the Report stage. I think an owner of property who through no fault of his own is unable to repair that property should not have to suffer the loss arising from consequential damage occasioned by wet or snow.

Captain Crookshank: Two points have been raised in this discussion. The first concerns damage which may arise from weather or other such causes before temporary repairs can be executed. The second point concerns damage which has occurred owing to somebody's neglect, and that is a different issue. On the first point I am advised that the Clause as drafted would insure that compensation would be paid for all consequential and latent damage which might be legitimately arising from enemy action, and that, I think, covers the point about the weather. We are quite prepared to make certain that the Clause does cover it, but it is generally believed that that sort of indirect result of bomb damage should be covered. Other Amendments which have not been moved bring in a whole sphere of indirect results and raise a very different proposition. It is not necessary to argue them now, because they have not been moved. The effect of them would be to widen the obligations beyond anything we had in view in the Bill. On the point of neglect, the Amendment which has been moved is, as the Bill stands, unnecessary. What we propose to do is to try to devise an Amendment to be brought forward on the next stage which will secure that where there has been negligence in failing to execute works which if they had been executed would have prevented further damage, then the negligence ought to be taken into account when it comes to assessing payment. I think that is really what is at the back of the mind of the hon. Member—that if the owner just does not do anything he should not get the same amount of compensation as if he had done what a good citizen would do, that is, done his best to restrict the area of damage.

Sir J. Lamb: I should like to make it clear that my Amendments were not moved because, I understood, they were not called, as preference was being given to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member opposite. It was my desire that my Amendments should be called, because I think they are more in line with what is wanted, but I had to speak on my hon. Friend's Amendment because mine were not called. I think this Amendment of mine would have met the point of negligence on the part of the owner. It is, in page 43, line 26, at the end, to insert—
Provided also that no payment shall be made by the Commission in respect of indirect war damage unless they are satisfied that all reasonable precautions to prevent such damage were taken by the person otherwise entitled to such payment.
However, in view of the statement made by the Minister, I am willing to agree to the matter being dealt with later.

Mr. Woodburn: I think the Financial Secretary misunderstood the purpose of the Amendment, which was to secure a guarantee that where people had taken precautions the Bill did give them proper compensation. Obviously it would be ridiculous to say that people who did not take those precautions should receive the same consideration. In view of the fact that the Financial Secretary is proposing to introduce some new provision in regard to this matter, I will not prosecute this point further.

Major Milner: Notwithstanding what the Financial Secretary has said, I do not feel satisfied that deterioration caused by weather would, in fact, come under the heading of "war damage." Perhaps his advisers will consider the point again, in order to make quite certain that it is included.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the Financial Secretary tell us what he means by "a substantial degree of risk" in the phrase
measures involving a substantial degree of risk to property.
That seems to be a queer qualification to put into the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 43, line 27, leave out "action against the enemy," and insert:


such action against the enemy as is referred to in paragraph (a) of that Sub-section.—[Captain Crookshank.]

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 43, line 44, at the end, to add:
() The provisions of Sub-section (3) of this Section shall have effect as respects work done on land, damage caused to land, and loss or damage to vehicles or aircraft whether done, caused or occurring before or after the commencement of this Act:
Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall be construed as affecting any payment under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, made before the commencement of this Act.
The object of this new Sub-section is to ensure that the provisions with regard to compensation in the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, and in this Bill are co-extensive. As this Bill is to be retrospective it is necessary that the provisions of the Act of 1939 should also be retrospective, but with a proviso that where transactions under the Act of 1939 have been closed nothing further can arise.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Woodburn: May I raise here the point which I mentioned a moment ago regarding the meaning of the words "involving a substantial degree of risk"? Those words remind me of the question, "How long is a piece of string?" It is purely a guess or somebody's estimate of what is a substantial degree of risk. I can see no justification for inserting the words at all. Substantial degree of risk is purely a relative term.

Captain Crookshank: There are certain forms of preparation which, everybody would agree, involve greater risks than others. For example, suppose the enemy were advancing along a road and it became necessary to make preparations by putting explosives under a bridge, and so on; such preparations might involve a more substantial degree of risk than would exist if the enemy's advance had not occurred. Other examples might be given, in which different degrees of risk would be involved, but into which I do not need to go at the moment.

Mr. Woodburn: Perhaps I have not made the point clear. Both these paragraphs say:
measures taken under proper authority.

If the measures are taken under proper authority, what is the purpose of the qualification that the damage will be compensated for only if the precautionary measures taken involve a substantial degree of risk to property? If damage is done to property the risk must have been there, and whether it is a substantial degree of risk or not does not make any difference when the property has been damaged. I cannot see why there should be a limitation, if the damage is done as a result of the precautionary measures.

Captain Crookshank: I cannot remember all these things off-hand, but I believe the case I stated would obviously fall within the sphere of the Clause, namely, when making arrangements to blow up a bridge. On the other hand, one might take preparatory action against the enemy resulting in damage of some sort or other, while clearly not involving a substantial degree of risk to property. For example, you might be moving troops about, and, while those precautionary movements were going on, a lorry might run into a shop front and do damage there. Unless you had some words in the Clause to cover such a case, somebody might think that it came within the definition of war damage. No substantial risk would, however, have arisen out of your preparations simply by reason of the fact that a lorry had run into a shop front; but there would have been such risk, if something had happened as a result of the mining of a bridge. There is a distinction between those two cases and there may be many other cases.

Mr. Woodburn: If we were making a hole, as an anti-tank measure, no one would say that it involved a substantial degree of risk to property. If it actually caused a landslide and a subsidence of the whole of the property concerned, the preparatory measures, while not apparently involving a substantial degree of risk, would have actually resulted in a substantial degree of damage to the property, but the damage would be ruled out, under the Clause. If the words were something like: "measures resulting in substantial damage to property," they would be more appropriate to the point used by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; but I will be content if he will look into the matter.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 61.—(Certain expenses not to be a deduction for income tax, national defence contribution or excess profits tax.)

Sir Frank Sanderson: I beg to move, in page 44, line 21, to leave out from the beginning to the first "the," in line 23, and to insert:
It is hereby provided that the amount paid by a contributory property shall he deducted from the annual value in computing the liability under this Act of any person for any purpose of the Income Tax Acts, but not so as to include.
I believe the Amendment is self-expressive and I do not want to develop the argument for it very far. I desire that the premium for this insurance should be regarded as business expenditure. I do not see how the premium differs from any other form of insurance premium, say upon workmen's compensation or upon premises, which are regarded as business expenditure. I would ask my right hon. and gallant Friend whether he can see his way to allow this premium to be so regarded?

Captain Crookshank: I note that the intention of the Amendment of my hon. Friend is that the premium should be regarded as business expenses. The Amendment, as it appears on the Paper, would authorise a deduction in the instalment under Part I of the Bill in assessing Income Tax on property under Schedule A. I do not think that is what the hon. Member had in mind but, anyhow, it is out of the question.

Sir F. Sanderson: The Amendment is of my own drafting, and if the principle were agreed to, it would no doubt be redrafted by my right hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain Crookshank: It would not only have to be redrafted. It would have to be something different. One could not undertake the reassessment of all Schedule A payments. When the general proposition was raised by my hon. Friend and several other hon. Gentlemen on the Second Reading Debate, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

and the Solicitor-General, both pointed out that, in the view of the Government, it would be wrong to make this alteration. The reasons were very well put by my right hon. and learned Friend. What we require from this is new money. If you allow this premium as an expense, it means that you have to get more money from the taxpayers, or else—and this would be just as disadvantageous to the people concerned—to raise the rate of premium. You have to get more money from somewhere and, on the whole, the Government came to the conclusion that this form of premium should he dealt with as suggested by the Bill in its present form.
There is, of course, the further consideration which I am sure will be in the minds of hon. Members, that if we did allow it as a business deduction, we should come up against the difficulty which we have met elsewhere as to whether a particular firm is or is not paying Excess Profits Tax. According to their position, it would have to be considered how far the premium would be paid at the expense of the Government. Representations were received during the preparation of the Bill from various quarters, and these points were made by, I think, the Chambers of Commerce. On further consideration, they saw that this was not a point which could be maintained and that the Amendment should not be pressed. If one follows the matter out at length, one sees that the position which the Government have taken up is the best. I am sorry that I cannot accept the suggestion on which my hon. Friend's Amendment is based.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 63.—(Provision as to certain mutual insurance schemes.)

Amendment made: In page 45, line 27, after "any," insert "business or."—[Captain Crookshank.]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): I beg to move, in page 45, line 36, at the beginning, to insert "the Board of Trade may direct that."
This and the three Amendments which follow it on the Paper deal with the scheme specified in paragraph (a) of Clause 63 (1) affecting goods declared by Order to be voluntarily insurable, and schemes dealing with private concerns suffering otherwise than from war damage and goods declared to be uninsurable under the business scheme. The Board of Trade may exercise control over these schemes.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 45, line 37, after "any," insert "business or."

In line 37, after "scheme," insert:
specified in the direction of which the primary purpose is the provision of indemnification against losses arising otherwise than by reason of war damage to land or goods, or.

In line 39, after "under," insert "subsection (1C) of."

In line 40, at the end, insert:
or as respects goods which by virtue of an order of the Board under paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section forty-five of this Act are not compulsorily insurable under the business scheme operated under Part II of this Act.

In line 41, at the end, insert "business or."

In page 46, line 15, after "any," insert "business or."

In line 20, after the second "the," insert "business or."

In line 31, after "person," insert "on or."—[Major Lloyd George.]

Motion made and Question proposed: "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I would like some guidance here on a matter concerning this Clause in so far as it affects the mining industry. I am informed by those who should know that, as the Bill now stands, the mineral underground will be considered in deciding the amount of payment. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary feels that this is not the time to raise the matter.

Captain Crookshank: This Clause deals with mutual insurance.

Mr. Macdonald: Yes, but I understand that you are taking powers by which certain articles may be exempted. In so far as that is so, I was wondering whether

now is the time to raise this issue. We feel that the mineral underground is never likely to be interfered with by enemy action.

Captain Crookshank: This Clause deals with mutual insurance, and has nothing in the world to do with the point which the hon. Member has in mind.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I do not know the position of people who are already insured against war damage with the Farmers' Mutual Insurance scheme.

Major Lloyd George: This Clause, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at it, says:
Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall, … take part in the promoting or carrying on of any scheme.

Brigadier-General Brown: That means that the Farmers' Union scheme will be knocked on the head?

Major Lloyd George: It will affect all the mutual insurance schemes, with certain exceptions.

Brigadier-General Brown: What would by the position of the people insured with the mutual insurance schemes?

Major Lloyd George: On the winding up of those schemes the money will be distributed.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 64.—(Amendments by Defence Regulations.)

Amendment made: In page 47, line 17, leave out Sub-section (3).—[Captain Crookshank.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 65.—(Information as to Schedule A assessment and rating valuation.)

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 47, line 27, after "Revenue," to insert, "or the Board of Trade."
We desire to insert a reference to the Board of Trade because in certain cases we want the rating authorities to furnish to the Board of Trade information concerning valuations. Under the existing Clauses they have to give the information to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.


The reason why this may be of importance to the Board of Trade is that it may he necessary to have that information in order to decide whether a given piece of plant or machinery is, curiously enough, land or goods. That is because the definitions of "lands" in Clause 41 covers fixed machinery. The Board of Trade must have this information in order to find out whether a particular piece of plant or machinery is to be included in Part I or not.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 47, line 28, at the end, insert "or the Board."

In line 35, at the end, add: "(c) in relation to the Isles of Scilly, means the Council of the said Isles."—[Captain Crookshank.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 67.—(Provisions as to Board of Trade.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 48, line 7, to leave out from "Act," to "shall," in line 12.
Sub-section (3) of Clause 67 provides that certain Orders of the Board of Trade made under this Act shall be laid on the Table for the approval of Parliament, but it limits the Orders which have to be laid on the Table. It limits them to three types of Orders, namely: Orders dealing with a rate of premium, orders dealing with the exemption of persons from the provisions of Part II of the Act relating to compulsory insurance, and exemptions of certain goods. This Amendment is devised to ensure that all Orders made by the Board of Trade under this Act shall be laid on the Table. I see no reason why it should be limited to the particular classes indicated.

Major Lloyd George: We accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 68.—(Interpretation.)

Brigadier-General Brown: I beg to move, in page 48, line 29, to leave out from "that," to the end of line 32, and to insert:

'agricultural land' includes all lands occupied with such agricultural cottages, farm buildings, farm houses and mansion houses as are appropriate to the property of which they form part and that 'agricultural buildings' includes all such cottages, farm buildings, farm houses and mansion houses as are appropriate to the property of which they form part.
I have already had conversations with my right hon. Friend on this subject but I am not quite clear about it. I understand that "mansion houses" cannot come into it, but it still seems that some Amendment, with those words omitted, is necessary, in order to cover cottages which are not contiguous to the farm and may even be some distance away. To the best of my knowledge they are on the same assessment as the farm-house and farm buildings, and I understand the Minister intends that they should be assessed with the farm buildings under the Bill. If that is so, this Amendment is not necessary. But I should like an assurance that such cottages as may not be contiguous to the farm buildings, but are at some little distance therefrom, will be included.

Mr. Garro Jones: There is one small point which I think requires clarification. A different definition of farm-house and agricultural property is being adopted in this Bill from that which has been adopted in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, and previous Acts. I am speaking from memory, but I believe I am correct in saying that to obtain the benefits of the Rating and Valuation Acts farm-houses, etc., must be houses occupied by persons primarily engaged in agriculture. This Clause extends the definition of "farm-house" to all farm cottages. There may be some very good reason why the definition should be extended. I have no particular objection to it, but I think the Committee ought to be informed why the definition is being extended.

Captain Crookshank: A priori there is no particular reason why a farm cottage or any other cottage should be treated in a different way from a house or cottage occupied by the postman, the doctor, or whoever it may be. They ought all to be the same for this purpose. But, as is explained earlier in the Bill, we have to find some rough-and-ready way in which we can get contributions, and we have adopted the Schedule A assessment. Our general intention on this subject is that since, in many cases, the Schedule A


assessment does include the agricultural cottages which are occupied by farm workers they come under one valuation, and we have, accordingly, described the land on which they stand as agricultural land for the purposes of the Bill, and as such liable to the lower rate of contribution. It is perhaps true to say that, by being included in that assessment, they do get preferential treatment, but the alternative would be to disentangle them from these assessments, which would be a preposterous thing to do. Not only would the time and skill involved be considerable, but at the end of it there would be no appreciable increase of contributions. The general valuation of cottages for Schedule A purposes is very small and at the end of the process of disentangling them more would have been lost than gained. The purpose is not, therefore, to introduce any general idea of what an agricultural worker's cottage is, but is a purely practical one of applying this part of the Bill quickly.
If, however, the cottage is not part of the assessment which is covered by the words "on or contiguous to the land," if it is a separate independent cottage, it would be treated, in spite of the fact that it is occupied by an agricultural worker—which, of course, has nothing to do with the case—under a separate Schedule A valuation and which had to pay contribution at the ordinary 2s. rate. In cases where there is a general assessment for a property and where some of the cottages are included in the general assessment but are not on or contiguous to the land, I cannot answer my hon. and gallant Friend offhand, but I should think that there would not be very many occasions on which that problem would arise. The general intention, however, is to avoid disentangling the assessments and thereby to save time.

Sir J. Lamb: A large number of cottages may be essential to the working of a farm. They are let with the farm and used by farm workers, but are not contiguous to the land. They may be some distance away. But they are, nevertheless, as important for the carrying on of the farm as if they were part of it.

Captain Crookshank: The point is not whether these cottages are used for carrying on the business of the farm or by particular kinds of workers. The point is

whether they come within existing assessments. It is from the assessment point of view that we attack this problem, not from the point of view of the work done.

Brigadier-General Brown: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 48, line 38, at the end, insert—
'Defence Regulations' means regulations made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, or the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940; emergency powers' means powers conferred by Defence Regulations, by Section fifty-two of the Telegraph Act, 1863, or by Section seven of the Air Navigation Act, 1920, as amended by any subsequent enactment, or exercisable by virtue of the prerogative of the Crown; and 'exercise' includes, in relation to emergency powers; a purported exercise thereof." [Captain Crookshank.]

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 48, line 38, at the end, to insert—
business' includes the functions of any local authority.
There is no definition in the Bill of the word "business." It does appear in the Bill on several occasions, and on behalf of the County Councils' Association, for which I am speaking now, I would like to know whether they are to be included under the word "business." Under Part I they are, of course, very large owners. Under Part II of the Bill, the statutory duties imposed upon them lead them to undertake obligations which in practice are business schemes. The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that such schemes are businesses.

Captain Crookshank: It has been said already that we are prepared to consider some of these points about local authorities in the Bill. This is one of the points.

Mr. Silkin: I thought we had a definite assurance from the President of the Board of Trade on an earlier Amendment that the functions of the local authorities would be regarded as businesses. I should have been happy to leave it at that.

Sir J. Lamb: If that is so, I am content.

Sir K. Wood: That is so. The President of the Board of Trade said that it had been decided that from the legal point of view it was unnecessary to specify these matters.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 48, line 41, to leave out "choses in action or money," and to insert:
money, negotiable instruments, securities for money, evidences of title to any property or right or of the discharge of any obligation, or any documents owned for the purposes of a business.
This Amendment is to widen the class of goods uninsurable under the business and chattels insurance schemes.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Lamb: On a point of Order. I do not wish to move my next Amendment on the Order Paper—in page 48, line 46, at the end, to insert:
'local authority' means the council of a county, county borough, county district or rural parish"—
if I can be assured that this is covered by the Government's undertaking.

Sir K. Wood: Yes, this is covered.

Further Amendment made: In page 49, 50, line 5, at the end, insert:
'war damage' has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section (1) of Section fifty-nine of this Act."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 69.—(Application to Scotland.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 49, line 10, to leave out from "shall," to the end of line 11, and to insert:
extend to Scotland subject to the modifications specified in the following provisions of this Section.

Mr. Garro Jones: I do not wish to prolong unduly the consideration of this Clause, and of the rest of the Bill, but it would serve a useful purpose if the Lord Advocate would now make the general statement which has been awaited with interest.

The Lord Advocate: I had intended to make the statement on the next. Amendment, which is the central feature of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 49, line 17, at the end, to insert:
(2) The expression 'proprietary interest' means, in relation to any hereditament or property, the estate or interest of the person entered or entitled to he entered in the ordinary valuation roll as the proprietor of the land comprised in the hereditament or in any part of that land:

Provided that—

(i) where the person so entered or entitled to be so entered is a lessee under a lease the stipulated duration of which is more than twenty-one years, or in the case of minerals more than thirty-one years from the date of entry, the lessor, the owner of the fee simple and any intermediate lessors shall also be deemed to be owners of proprietary interests in such land or part;
(ii) where a lessee is so entered or entitled to be entered in pursuance of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1895, in respect of erections or structural improvements on the subjects let, he shall be deemed to be the owner of the fee simple in such erections or structural improvements; and
(iii) where a lessee or a landholder within the meaning of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1911 to 1931, has made or acquired erections or structural improvements in respect of which he is not required to be so entered by reason only that the erections or improvements fall within one of the classes specified in paragraphs (1), (2) or (3) of Section four of the said Act of 1895, he shall be deemed to be the owner of the sole proprietary interest and of the fee simple in such erections or improvements."

This Amendment is the central feature in regard to the application of Part I of the Bill to Scotland. I should like to say a few words in explanation of the method we have adopted for achieving what, I think, everyone will agree is the difficult task of dovetailing the scheme of the Bill into two entirely different systems of law, the English law and the Scottish law. I was fortunate in having the assistance of the legal societies in Scotland; and, while the solution now proposed is only one of many possible solutions, it is one which met with the unanimous approval of those experts who gave the matter their consideration.
The main purpose of the Amendment is this. The provisions of Part I, so far as they are applicable to England, are very properly framed with a special eye to leasehold tenure, to the ground landlord and to a succession of lessees and sub-lessees. This is a special feature of English law. Scotland has no real counterpart to leasehold tenancy, except to a very limited extent. The counterpart is found in Scotland only in the very rare cases of long leases, which are of 31 years' duration, or, in the case of minerals, 31 years' duration. Accordingly, for Scotland, we have proposed to adopt as the foundation of the liability to contribute and the right to payment under Part I the very familiar principles of the Scottish valuation law, under which the proprietor is the only


person who will be bound to contribute; and the only person entitled to receive payment in the event of damage will be, if I ignore certain exceptions, the proprietor or the tenant under a lease for more than 21 years, or, in the case of minerals, 31 years from the date of entry. By adopting the machinery and principles of the Valuation Acts, with which all lawyers and most other people in Scotland are familiar, we leave the arena of leasehold tenure, and all the directions with regard to direct and indirect contributors except for the limited purpose of the long lease.
The effect of the Clause—which, of course, has to be framed in somewhat technical language—is, in accordance with this general principle, in the first portion of the Amendment, to provide that
the expression 'proprietary interest' means, in relation to any hereditament or property, the estate or interest of the person entered or entitled to be entered in the ordinary valuation roll.
Perhaps the Committee will take it from me that the provisos which follow are designed to deal with certain not very common cases which have to be provided for in relation to such matters as erections or structural improvements made by tenants, and particularly by agricultural tenants. These are minor details, but the broad principles are as I have indicated.
I think that I may claim that with this adaptation of Part I of the Bill to Scotland, the Bill will work even more simply than in England and will achieve on both sides of the Border substantially identical treatment. As has been said more than once by my right hon. Friend, I cannot claim that justice will be done in every conceivable case which can be stated, but I am sure that every Member of the Committee who has been taking part in these proceedings has long since realised that, if we aimed at ideal justice in every conceivable case, this discussion would never come to an end. I am confident in advising the Committee that with this adaptation not only will similar or substantially identical results be secured, but, in the vast majority of cases, the scheme as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will operate equitably.

Mr. Robert Gibson: It is right and proper that on this side of the

Committee there should be some endorsement of the remarks of the Lord Advocate with regard to the work which has been done by the special committee of the Faculty of Advocates and by the legal societies in Scotland in applying their minds to the question of the adaptation of this Bill in its application to Scotland. The Bill presented to these committees a very big problem indeed. The conveyancing law of Scotland is by itself a highly technical branch of law, but the problem in this Bill was the adaptation to Scottish procedure and Scottish law of a very big and important scheme couched in the terminology of English law. What has been done has been most valuable. It was an arduous task undertaken at very short notice, and it was put through in a very short time. I concur in the remarks which have been so ably made on that topic by the learned Lord Advocate.
In taking the valuation roll as the basis for the scheme in Scotland, we have given testimony to the work and efficiency of our Valuation Appeal Court in Scotland. People in Scotland are very familiar with the valuation roll and with the practice, procedure, methods and results of the work in that court. It would be right that the Lord Advocate should himself be thanked for the way in which he has met all the objections and suggestions that have been put forward. The work of harmonising these different suggestions was indeed very great, and the thanks of Members from Scotland on both sides of the Committee and of many bodies in Scotland have been abundantly earned by the Lord Advocate. We are well justified in recording our deep sense of gratitude to him in the matter.

Mr. Woodburn: I would like to join in congratulating the Lord Advocate on the very thorough way in which he has tried to cover all the objections and propositions put forward by the various bodies in Scotland. I confess that, although I have tried, I have not been able to comprehend the relation of all the new Amendments to the Bill itself, and, therefore, I cannot say definitely that all the points that have been conceded are satisfactory. It would be advisable if the Lord Advocate could give an assurance upon one point which is felt very strongly in Scotland. The valuation roll in Scotland differs, I understand, from the Schedule A valuation on which the tax is to be


levied in England, inasmuch as under Schedule A deductions are made from the gross annual value in respect of owners' rates and repairs, whereas in Scotland it is the gross amount which comes into consideration. In Scotland it is felt that this means that actually a higher tax is to be paid on the whole than is to be paid in England; that they are having to pay on gross value and that in England it is going to be on the net value, which is regarded as being an injustice to Scotland which requires to be voiced in this House. I should like the assurance of the Lord Advocate—and I am sure that he will do his best to protect us—that he has protected that point.
There is another point. In Scotland local authority properties, in many cases hospitals and schools, have no deductions made from their annual value comparable to the deductions made in England. I would like to know whether allowances are to be made in these Amendments to bring the Scottish local authority hospitals, and other public utilities or organisations, into line with those in England? Will adjustments be made to public utilities in Scotland to bring them in on a par with the English assessment? I understand that, with regard to the war damage authority, the term "drainage authority" does not apply to Scotland, and I have tried to check up whether the Lord Advocate covered that point, and have not succeeded. There is another point in regard to the question of the mortgages. There does not seem to be anything dealing with pari passu bonds which are common in Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: As regards the question of the meaning attached to the words net annual value, I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that I have already protected Scotland from injustice in this respect by an Amendment which appears lower down on the Order Paper. The question does not arise on this Amendment. The question to which the hon. Member referred of the local authorities in regard to schools is under examination. It is not covered by these Amendments. The hon. Member will be aware that it is rather a complicated problem both in England and Scotland, and I think that the matter might be allowed to rest there with the assurance of my right hon. Friend. Drainage authorities are not referred to, for there

are none in Scotland. As regards mortgages the position is dealt with in Clause 19 of the Bill, and it will be in the recollection of hon. Members that a very considerable difference of opinion developed on the consideration of that Clause. My right hon. Friend indicated more than once that he desired to look at the matter afresh in the light of representations that had been made. Having that in view, I have not attempted in this Clause to put down Amendments dealing with the problem until the wider issue has been further considered and possibly made the subject of further proposals.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 49, line 20, after "of," insert:
a security by way of ground annual and.

In line 31, after "utile," insert:
or, in the case of property, other than feudal property, of the owner.

In line 42, leave out from "either" to the end of line 2, on page 50, and insert:
a farmhouse occupied in connection with any agricultural land or an agricultural cottage so occupied which is on or contiguous to that land.

In page 50, line 10, leave out "of this Act."

In line 10, at the end, add:
() section fourteen shall have effect as if

(a) for any reference to a net annual value shown in a valuation list there were substituted a reference to a gross annual value entered in a valuation roll less any sums on which relief would have been allowed under Rules 1, 4, and 7 of No. V of Schedule A if an assessment based on such gross annual value had been made under Schedule A; and
(b) the proviso to Sub-section (2) were omitted.

() Section twenty-five and the definition of 'land' in Sub-section (1) of section forty-one shall have effect as if the Acts and the Order therein respectively mentioned applied to Scotland;
() In relation to a harbour, quay or pier undertaking to which Part III of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, applies, the appropriate department for the purposes of section thirty shall be the Secretary of State instead of the Minister of Transport.
() Section thirty-two shall have effect as if for any reference in Sub-section (1) thereof to a net annual value there were substituted a reference to a gross annual value.

In line 11, leave out "of this Act."

In line 21, leave out "of this Act."

In line 25, at the end, add:
() In Sub-section (2) of Section sixty-five for any reference to a rating authority there shall he substituted a reference to a county or town council charged with the duty of causing a valuation roll to be made up;


() Where a value payment is made in whole or in part in respect of a proprietary interest that was subject immediately before the occurrence of the war damage to a trust within the meaning of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921, or to an entail or to a life-rent, the sum so paid shall be held and applied in like manner as if the proprietary interest had been acquired under compulsory powers and the said sum were the purchase money or compensation therefor;
() Payment of contributions in respect of any contributory property by an heir of entail shall be deemed to be expenditure on improvements within the meaning of the Entail Acts;
() A county or town council shall have power to borrow such sums as may be necessary for the purpose of paying contributions or premiums under this Act:
Provided that such power shall not be exercised except with the consent of, and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by—

(a) the Minister of Transport as regards highways, omnibuses, tramways, trolley vehicles and garages therefor;
(b) the Electricity Commissioners as regards electricity undertakings; and
(c) the Secretary of State in any other case.

() An order by a referee as to the costs of any appeal or reference to him under Section seven or Section ten where the amount of the valuation as determined by the Commission, or the value payment, as the case may be, does not exceed five hundred pounds, may be enforced by leave of the sheriff."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Major Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 50, line 25, at the end, to add:
(i) for the purpose of determining the amount of a value payment to be made by the Commission in respect of any hereditament comprising dwelling-houses to which the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, applies or applied, no regard shall be paid to any increase of owners' rates paid by the owner of such hereditament over the amount of owners' rates paid for the year ending Whitsunday 1920.
My only object in moving this Amendment is to give the Lord Advocate an opportunity of saying a word or two which I hope will contain some concession to those owners of dwelling houses in Scotland who are very seriously affected under the Bill by the Scottish rating system. I know we are anxious to get on, so I do not propose to elaborate in any way the Scottish rating system, but its effect under this Bill is that the value of houses in Scotland which are rent controlled is very much less than similar houses in England. I am quite sure that those who prepared this Bill, coming from England, must have been shocked to learn of the difficulties of the Scottish rating system, and one

can only hope that, as a result of the inquiries which the Government Departments and Treasury must have made in connection with this Bill, sooner or later something will be done to remove these anomalies from Scotland. The object of this Amendment is to eliminate altogether the effect of the Scottish rating system upon value payments in the case of rent-controlled dwelling-houses. English Members may not be particularly interested and Scottish Members fully understand it, and I know that the Chancellor and the Lord Advocate fully appreciate what is at the back of the Amendment.

The Lord Advocate: I rather gathered from the terms in which my hon. and gallant Friend moved this Amendment that he did so, not with the idea of its being accepted in the form in which it is drafted, because I am sure he would be the first to agree that a Bill having for its object the provision of a scheme for making compensation for war damage should not be used to rectify the grievances of the Scottish rating system. I think an Amendment designed to that end might almost come within your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, as being out of Order. I would like to say this: My right hon. Friend and I are, of course, well aware of the special features which apply to controlled property in Scotland, particularly in the Glasgow area. We are well aware of the special difficulty which arises, not so much from the Scottish system of rating, as from the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1920; in their application to Scotland. Those special cases seem to provide good ground for special consideration of that class of property from the standpoint of Clause 19, and the distribution of liability for contribution as between the owner of the property and the mortgagee or bondholder. That is a question which will he before my right hon. Friend and myself in reviewing the position under Clause 19. But when my hon. and gallant Friend proposed that the matter should be dealt with, not from the angle of allocating liability for contributions, but from the angle of making provision in this Bill for repaying to the owners of property in Scotland 20 years' purchase of owners' rates, which they have been paying since 1920, I think the Committee will agree that that would be distorting this Bill from its true function.

Major Lloyd: In view of what the Lord Advocate has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 70.—(Application to Northern Ireland.)

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the put, and negatived.

Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Avoidance of duplica- tion of payments in respect of war damage.)

(1) Where any person is entitled under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, to a payment in respect of war damage—

(a) by reason of the doing of any work on land in the exercise of emergency powers; or
(b) by reason of the occurrence of damage to a vehicle or aircraft requisitioned on behalf of His Majesty in the exercise of emergency powers,

no payment in respect of the damage shall be made under the provisions of this Act or a policy issued under either of the schemes operated under Part II thereof to that person or to any person claiming under him.
(2) Where war damage occurs to land or goods, and at the time when, apart from the provisions of this Sub-section, any payment (whether with or without interest) would be made to any person in respect thereof under Part I of this Act or under a policy issued under either of the schemes operated under Part II thereof, that person or any other person—

(a) has received (otherwise than by way of loan) in respect of the damage any sum paid on behalf of His Majesty, not being a sum paid by virtue of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, or of this Act; or
(b) is entitled to receive (otherwise than by way of loan) in respect of the damage any sum payable on behalf of His Majesty, not being a sum payable by virtue of either of the said Acts,

the payment under Part I of this Act or the policy shall be withheld or reduced, as the case may require, for the purpose of securing—

(i) that the total amount (excluding any interest) paid in respect of the damage under the said Part I of the said policy is reduced by the aggregate of any such sums received or receivable in respect of the damage as are referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Sub-section; or
(ii) if the aggregate of those sums exceeds the total amount (excluding any interest) which, apart from the provisions of this Subsection, would be payable in respect of the damage under the said Part I or the said

policy, that no payment in respect of the damage is made under the said Part I or the said policy,

and any interest on the payment shall be withheld or reduced accordingly.
(3) No damages shall be recoverable in respect of war damage to land or goods occurring on or after the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, on the ground that the damage was attributable to negligence, nuisance or breach of duty and any action or other legal proceeding to recover such damages on that ground instituted before the commencement of this Act shall be discharged and made void, subject to such order as to costs as the court or a judge thereof may think fit to make.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause seeks to avoid duplication of payments in respect of war damage where compensation may have already been paid under the Compensation Defence Act. The second Sub-section deals with cases where ex gratin payments have already been made in respect of damage by balloons from balloon barrages and the third deals with a rather special point. There are, for example, certain by-laws affecting railway companies regarding the ammunition they carry, and it may be in the interests of the realm that these by-laws should have to be broken. It is possible that there may be war damage at a time when ammunition is being carried in these circumstances, and it is desired that all claims should be dealt with under this Bill. I think paragraph (b) may be rather more widely worded than is necessary, but I will look into the matter between now and the Report stage and perhaps make the words a little clearer.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Contributions and pre- miums to be treated as capital out- goings.)

Contributions made and indemnities given under Part I of this Act, and premiums paid under policies issued under either of the schemes operated under Part II of this Act, shall he treated for all purposes as outgoings of a capital nature.—[Sir K. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause provides that a declaration for contribution of indemnities under Part I and premiums under Part II of the Bill should be treated as outgoings of a special nature. The Committee will recollect that under the Bill as drafted it is already laid down that any liability under Part I should be treated as being of a capital nature, and this shows how liabilities under the Act are to be treated in other cases.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Highways.)

(1) No payment shall be made under the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act in respect of war damage to a highway maintainable at the public expense.
(2) Payments shall be made by the Commission to highway authorities in accordance with, and subject to the provisions of, a scheme to be made by the Treasury in respect of war damage to such highways as aforesaid occurring during the risk period, and contributions towards the expense of making such payments shall be made by the councils of counties and county boroughs at such rates and in such manner as may be provided by the scheme.
The contributions aforesaid shall he expenses for general county purposes as well in the case of the London County Council as of the councils of other counties.
(3) The contributions aforesaid shall be payable by five interim annual instalments, becoming due in the year nineteen hundred and forty-one and each of the four subsequent years and a final instalment.
(4) The provision to be made by the scheme in relation to the contributions aforesaid shall be such as to secure, as nearly as may be, by reference to estimates of the relevant amounts—

(a) That the aggregate of the contributions shall bear to the payments made under Sub-section (2) of this Section the same proportion as the net receipts of the Exchequer under the provisions of this Part of this Act other than this Section (calculated in accordance with paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (5) of Section sixteen of this Act) bear to the payments in respect of war damage made under the provisions of this Part of this Act other than this Section (calculated as aforesaid); and
(b) That each interim instalment, and the final instalment, to be paid by the council of any county or county borough shall hear to the aggregate of the corresponding interim instalments, or of the final instalments, as the case may be, to be paid by all such councils, the same proportion as the rateable value of the property in the area of that

council as appearing on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine (or, in the case of the London County Council, the sixth day of April in that year), in the valuation list in force on that date bore to the rateable value of the property in the areas of all such councils as so appearing.

(5) The scheme may provide for the payment by the Minister of Transport, with the approval of the Treasury, to the councils of counties and county boroughs in Great Britain of grants in respect of the contributions to be made by them under this section not exceeding in the aggregate in the case of any council one half of the contributions to be made by that council.
Any grants paid by the Minister of Transport under any provision made by the scheme under this Sub-section shall be defrayed out of the Road Fund.
(6) The scheme may provide for the making by the Commission to highway authorities of payments in respect of war damage to roads, not being highways maintainable at the public expense, in cases in which works for the making good of war damage thereto are executed by such authorities and where a payment has been, or is to be, made under the scheme in respect of any such works, the cost thereof shall not be the subject of a payment under the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act.
(7) Nothing in the three last preceding Subsections shall be construed as limiting the generality of the power conferred on the Treasury by virtue of Sub-section (2) of this Section to make by the scheme such provision as to the payments and contributions therein mentioned as appear to them to be requisite.
(8) A scheme made under this Section may be amended by a subsequent scheme made thereunder.
(9) A scheme made under this Section shall be embodied in an order which shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made and shall be of no effect until it has been approved by a resolution of that House.
(10) The fact that works have been executed on a road by a highway authority as mentioned in Sub-section (6) of this Section, or that a payment in respect of such works has been made under the scheme, shall not be treated as relevant for the purposes of the determination of any question arising as to whether the road is maintainable at the public expense.
(11) In this Section—
The expression "highway authority" does not include the Minister of Transport;
The expression "highway maintainable at the public expense" means a highway repairable by the inhabitants at lame or by a highway authority, and includes any bridge or viaduct carrying a highway being a bridge or viaduct which is repairable by the council of a county, county borough, metropolitan borough or county district, by the Common Council of the City of London, or by the inhabitants of any locality;


The expression "road" includes a footway and a bridle path, and includes any bridge or viaduct carrying a road; and
The expression "bridge" and "viaduct" respectively include the approaches thereto and the abutments thereof.
(12) In the application of this Section to Scotland—

(a) Any reference to a county borough shall be construed as a reference to a large burgh within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929; any reference to a county district shall be construed as a reference to a small burgh within the meaning of that Act; and for the purpose of any contribution payable under this Section a small burgh shall be deemed to he included within the county in which it is situated; and
(b) Any reference to the rateable value of the property in the area of a council shall be construed as a reference to four-fifths of such rateable value.

(13) References in this Section to councils of counties shall be construed as including references to the Council of the Isles of Scilly, but contributions made under this Section by the said Council shall be general expenses.—[Captain Crookshank.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is the intention that a detailed scheme should be presented to the House with regard to highways, and that scheme would, of course, not be effective until the House had approved it; but we think it is as well to include in the Bill some principles upon which the scheme would be drafted. The most important point is in Sub-section (4), which lays down how the contributions are to be raised from highway authorities. The authorities for this purpose will be county and county borough councils, and not the smaller authorities, in order to make sure, by taking the larger authorities, that there is no double payment of contributions. The manner in which the contribution will be levied is, briefly, that the total to be contributed by the highway authorities in respect of war damage to highways shall bear to the payments made under Sub-section (2) of the new Clause the same proportion as the total contributions bear to payments under Part I of the Bill when expressed over the whole field. Sub-section (5) of the new Clause deals with grants out of the Road Fund, and Sub-section (6) deals with the case where a highway authority may find it necessary on traffic grounds to do work on a road

which is not, in fact, a highway maintainable at the public expense. The effect of this Sub-section is that the cost of repairing war damage in those cases would be met from the Exchequer and not operate to increase the contributions payable in respect of the highway authorities, those contributions being related in their to to payments by the War Damage Commission.
As the scheme will have to come before the House later on, I do not suppose hon. Members would wish me to discuss the details at any length now, but perhaps it would save time if, with your permission, Colonel Clifton Brown, I said a few words about the Amendments to the new Clause which are on the Order Paper. The first Amendment, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), seeks to ensure that there Shall be consultation with the local authorities before the scheme is introduced. As the scheme has to be approved by Parliament, it is most likely that when it is brought forward the first question which my hon. Friend will ask is whether the authorities have been consulted, and I should be sorry for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and myself if we had to say "No." Obviously, they will be consulted, and I do not think it is necessary to put that provision in the Bill, since it is a matter of common sense.

Sir J. Lamb: On a point of Order, Colonel Clifton Brown. Do you intend to call my Amendments or not? I should like to have an opportunity to reply to the statements that are being made by my right hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain Crookshank: I think I shall be able to satisfy my hon. Friend. Although I cannot imagine either the Chancellor or myself putting ourselves in the position of having to say that we had not consulted the local authorities, if it would give my hon. Friend any satisfaction, we have no objection to inserting the words of his Amendment. The second Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend would insert in line 9, at the end, the words:
and the Treasury shall keep a separate account of all payments and contributions made by virtue of this Sub-section.
There must be some limit to the unnecessary words that we put in the Bill, and, therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will not bother with this Amendment. With


regard to my hon. Friend's third Amendment, in line 29, he wants us to insert, instead of retaining in the Sub-section the arrangement which there exists—that the contributions of particular councils should be levied on a proportion of their rateable value in 1939, which seems to us to be a reasonable way of dealing with the matter—a provision that the contributions should be levied on "such proportion as shall be prescribed by the scheme." Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain this Amendment, as I am not quite clear what he has in mind, but the arrangement in the Bill seems to us to be a reasonable way of getting fairness between the authorities. If my hon. Friend knows of any better method, perhaps he will explain it. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) proposes that the power to make payments out of the Road Fund shall be mandatory on the Minister of Transport. These payments will be made, but I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment, for the reason that all payments out of the Road Fund now are on the basis of "may," and it would be importing a slightly new idea into this Bill, and into this Bill only, if the provision were made mandatory.
The other Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham seek further definitions of viaducts, subways, and so on. While these particularise and go into details, there is no reason why we should not accept them, but we make an exception of the Amendment to line 77—to leave out "abutments thereof," and insert:
piers and abutments thereof, and any works connected with, or ancillary to, the bridge or viaduct.
We would prefer that there should be no reference to piers, not that we have any objection to them as such, but because such a reference might cast doubt on the meaning of other Statutes which deal with bridges without referring to piers. If it came to the payment of compensation I cannot see that there would be any danger that the compensation would not became payable. With this exception, the series of Amendments in the name of the hon. Member would be acceptable to my right hon. Friend. The purpose of the Amendment in the name of the hon. baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir G. Broad-

bridge) is to cover four bridges which have not anything to do with the London County Council. My right hon. Friend is willing to accept this Amendment. I hope that with these explanations, and bearing in mind that the scneme will come before the House, hon. Members will approve the general principles laid down in the new Clause.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 6, after "Treasury," to insert:
after consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to them to be concerned.
May I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for his adverse criticism of my Amendments before I had moved them? It was rather a question of giving judgment before he had heard the evidence. That does not always save time, and indeed saving time is not necessarily the best way to make law. The County Councils' Association wish to assert that they are not in agreement with the principle of the new Clause. They believe that highways are of such a national character that the repair of war damage to them should be a national obligation, and that the cost should not be placed on the local authorities. I am not going to question that now. The Association will be willing to do all they possibly can to assist in the formation of any scheme which is foreshadowed in the Bill, but they want to be sure that they will have consultations before the scheme is brought forward. We have had statements made that there will be consultations, but experience has shown that it is very much better if it is put in the Bill. My right hon. Friend has said it will be put in the Bill, and I thank him for saying so.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 29, to leave out from "councils," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert—
such proportion as shall be prescribed by the scheme.
In our opinion, it is debatable whether the rateable value of 1939 would be fair to some authorities. There are two principles which could be adopted. The first is that of the rateable value of an area,


and the second is the cost of maintaining the roads in an area. I do not wish to come down on either side; it is a debatable point, and has not been decided upon by the Association. They would prefer, as the question has not been decided by them, that the question should be left Open, so that that point can be debated when the scheme is being considered. That is the reason why I am moving this Amendment. We believe that some areas which are less able to pay will be more liable to suffer damage, whereas other areas of high rateable value may have no damage done. We do not think that that is fair as between authority and authority, and therefore I ask that the matter should be left optional, so that they shall have the right of determining later on.

Mr. Douglas: I desire to support the Amendment, which covers a very important aspect as far as the County of London is concerned. I hardly think the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have taken this fact into account. In London we have only 1½ per cent. of the total length of highways in the country, whereas we have 20 per cent. of the rateable value. It does seem a little unfair that the County of London should be required to pay one-fifth of the contributions which are to be made by local authorities under this scheme when they have only 1½ per cent. of the total length of highways. In order to be fair, I must admit that their roads have to be of a better standard in order to stand the extra strain of traffic. But even when taking that into account there seems to be a very strong disproportionment between contributions. I ask the Chancellor to accept the Amendment and to allow us to have some consultations before the scheme is made in order that we can try to find an equitable method of apportionment.

Captain Croakshank: Of course, this question does not affect the Government one way or the other—the question of the proportion between the different local authorities which together they have to pay by way of contribution. If the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) prefers to leave it open, instead of, as we suggest in the Bill, of employing the rateable value basis, so that local authorities may

come to some amicable solution, my right hon. Friend sees no objection.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 35, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall".
If the right hon. Gentleman can give a definite assurance that "may" is equivalent to "shall", I will not press the Amendment.

Sir K. Wood: I can give that assurance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 38, after "exceeding" to insert:
subject as hereinafter mentioned in this Subsection.

Captain Crookshank: What the Subsection does is to empower the Minister of Transport to make grants to the Road Fund in respect of contributions not exceeding 50 per cent. The Amendment appears to me to be due to confusion of thought, because this has to do with the part of the contribution which the Minister of Transport will be making owing to the fact that they are national highways. But exceptional war damage is going to be met by the War Damage Commission in full. The question whether there is much damage or not does not arise. From the compensation point of view the damage will be made good. I think my hon. Friend will see that the Amendment is misconceived.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made to the proposed new Clause:

In line 70, leave out "or viaduct," and insert "viaduct or tunnel."

After "highway," insert "and any pedestrian subway or pipe subway."

Leave out the second "or."

In line 71, after "viaduct," insert "tunnel or subway."—[Mr. Silkin.]

Sir George Broadbridge: I beg to move, as as Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 73, after "London," to insert:
by the Corporation of London as trustees of Bridge House Estates.
As the Bill stands, the definition would not include the four city bridges—Tower


Bridge, London Bridge, Southwark Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge. The Amendment will meet that deficiency.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 77, after "thereof," to insert:
and any works connected with, or ancillary to, the bridge or viaduct.
I take it from the right hon. Gentleman that the words "piers and abutments," which I had in the Amendment as printed on the Paper, are unnecessary and might conflict with other legislation. On that assurance I am moving the Amendment in an amended form.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made to the proposed new Clause:

In line 77, at the end, insert:
the expression 'tunnel' includes the approaches thereto and the abutments of such approaches, and any lifts or other works connected with, or ancillary to, the tunnel;
the expression 'pedestrian subway' includes the stairways thereof, the approaches thereto, any public convenience constructed therein, and any works connected with or ancillary to the subway;
the expression 'pipe subway' means any passage or covered way under a road constructed or adapted for the reception of, and affording convenient access to, any mains, pipes, tubes, cables, wires or apparatus, and includes any works connected with or ancillary to the subway.
For the purposes of this Section any embankment, embankment wall, or retaining wall supporting a highway, and the sides of, and any retaining wall supporting, any cutting enclosing a highway, shall be deemed to form part of the highway.

In line 77, after the words last inserted, insert:
(12) For the purposes of this Section, the London County Council shall be deemed to be a highway authority as respects any highway repairable by the Council and as respects any bridge, viaduct, tunnel or subway repairable by the Council, whether the highway thereon or therein is or is not repairable by the Council."—[Mr. Silkin.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."

Mr. Silkin: A good many of the local authorities have had an assurance given them by the Exchequer and the Ministry of Transnort under Circular 223 that the whole of their additional expenditure in

connection with roads arising out of war damage will be made good to them out of Exchequer funds. I hope that nothing in the Clause will take away from the local authorities the benefits of this Circular. I think that, on the whole, they would rather rely on their rights under the Circular than on anything contained in this new Clause. There is a further point which the Chancellor will appreciate. The finances of the local authorities will be put in the difficult position as a result of this Clause. Authorities will be in a difficulty in making the necessary provision in their rates for the right amount in respect of contributions. Many of them will have big contributions to make and it will make their finances exceedingly difficult. I do not know what the solution is, but I have no doubt that the Chancellor has taken that point into consideration. I think it is right that we should take note of this matter because the finances of local authorities will be in considerable chaos as a result of this Clause.

Sir K. Wood: The circular referred to by the hon. Member was not one from my Department, and perhaps he will communicate with me about it.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Land compulsorily acquired under existing enactments whilst in a damaged condition.)

(1) If any land constituting or forming part of a hereditament which has sustained war damage in respect of which a payment of cost of works would be the appropriate payment, but which has not been fully made good, is acquired compulsorily by virtue of an enactment passed before the passing of this Act, and compensation for the acquisition falls to be determined by reference to the value of the land in its damaged state (without regard to the prospective right of a purchaser to payment of the cost of making the damage good), the payment to be made under this Part of this Act in respect of the damage to the land acquired shall be of an amount equal to what would have been permissible for the payment of cost of works (so far as attributable to the land acquired if it is part only of the hereditament), and shall be made in the form of—

(a) a payment of cost of works in respect of any works for making good the damage executed before the date of the notice to treat or other the date on which the acquisition became obligatory, in so far as the proper cost thereof falls within the said permissible amount; and


(b) a value payment of an amount equal to the residue of the said permissible amount, or, if no such works were so executed, to the whole thereof.

(2) In a case in which the preceding Subsection has effect, Section six of this Act shall have effect in relation to works reasonably executed for temporarily meeting the circumstances created by the damage to the land acquired, being works, other than those taken into account under paragraph (a) of the preceding Sub-section, executed between the occurrence of the damage and the date mentioned in that paragraph, and in relation to such works only.
(3) Any question arising in giving effect to this Section shall be determined by the Commission.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause deals with land which is compulsorily acquired under existing enactments whilst it is in a damaged condition. The subject was originally dealt with by a paragraph in one of the Schedules relating to Clause 8 (2, c). An Amendment was put down to delete that paragraph. It was generally felt in the Committee that it was not a satisfactory way of dealing with it and this Clause is now substituted. Under the proposed new Clause, the hypothetical person who has suffered damage will be entitled to his cost-of-works payment on the same principles as those which apply to other people. But there is a provision that if the works have not been fully executed at the time of the acquisition, he may get the extra amount that would have been expended on the works if they had been completely carried out. I think this is a simpler and fairer arrangement than that originally in the Bill. It is, of course, a consequence of the Clause that the acquiring authority will have to pay only the value of the site as damaged by war action.

Earl Winterton: I presume that the Government have considered the definition of the words "compulsorily acquired," because, as the Committee will be aware, in this war land is taken over by many different authorities under many different statutes. A Government Department will acquire land for some purpose directly, and "compulsorily acquired" might be held by the courts to refer only to land taken in that way. On the other hand, war agricultural committees may take possession of a farm

because it has been badly farmed. I am given to understand that, in many cases, they merely notify the farmer that they have decided to take possession of the land and in some cases do so without any actual order being made. I only want an assurance that the words "compulsorily acquired" cover all such cases—that is where the Government acts indirectly through its agent, as well as where it acts directly.

The Attorney-General: I will look into that point. I think the phrase would cover those cases. It would cover cases where the acquisition is under a statute but by a body other than the Crown. In the case which the Noble Lord mentioned I do not think it would be "acquisition" within the meaning of this Clause, because acquisition means purchase, and the requisitioning of land by war agricultural committees is, I think, merely taking possession of the land temporarily for the period of the emergency.

Earl Winterton: In some cases it is after the emergency.

Mr. Benson: A considerable amount of land is acquired by local authorities and other authorities as a result of negotiation, but with the vendor having the knowledge that there are compulsory powers in the background. A local authority will buy the land, but they know that they can serve a compulsory acquisition order. What is the position where the negotiations take place in a friendly atmosphere, but with the definite knowledge that, if they are not concluded, then a compulsory acquisition order will be served?

The Attorney-General: The Clause provides for those cases where compulsion falls to be exercised. If the property is acquired by negotiation it would, so far as I can see, be in exactly the same position as any other property which is acquired. The result would be substantially the same as that provided for under the Sub-section. The owner would be entitled to a value payment or a cost-of-works payment. There is the possibility that if the cost-of-works payment had not been completed the owner might get slightly more beneficial terms if the compulsory powers were exercised.

Mr. Douglas: I should like to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the


Clause, which meets the wishes of the local authorities. The only difficulty is a rather subtle piece of drafting by which a cost-of-works payment is treated as a value payment when the works are not done. That would vest the right to payment in the vendor of the property, and if it does so, that meets the point.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAusE.—(Definition of "owner" in relation to proprietary interests.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section, references in this Part of this Act to the owner of a proprietary interest shall be construed as references to the person in whom the legal estate in respect of the interest is vested, or if the interest is a tenancy under an agreement for a lease or under-lease, to the person entitled to have vested in him the legal term agreed to be created.
(2) Where the legal estate or the title to the legal term, as the case may be, in respect of a proprietary interest is vested in the official trustee of charity lands or other trustee on or for charitable, ecclesiastical or public trusts or purposes not entitled to act in the trust, or in the Public Trustee holding in circumstances in which he is not entitled to act in the trust, then,—

(a) in the case of a trustee on or for charitable, ecclesiastical or public trusts or purposes, the managing trustees or committee of management shall be deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act to be the owner of the interest; and
(b) in the case of the Public Trustee, the person in receipt of the rent incident to the Public Trustee's estate, or, if there is no rent incident thereto, the person in occupation of the land, shall be deemed for those purposes to be the owner of the interest.

(3) Where under Section nine of the Administration of Estates Act, 1925, the estate of a person who died intestate is vested in the Probate Judge, that judge shall not he deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act to be the owner of any proprietary interest comprised in the estate, but upon administration being granted the administrator shall be deemed for those purposes to have been the owner thereof as from the date of the death.—[Sir K. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this Clause is to supply a definition of the word "owner." Subsections (2) and (3) deal with cases where the interest is a trust and is vested in a person who cannot deal with it, but holds it either as a custodian or to bridge the

interval before proper trustees are appointed. Hon. Members will be familiar with cases of that kind. The owner will be the person who is or will be, when appointed, entitled to act in the trust.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Destination of payments in certain cases.)

(1) Where immediately before the occurrence of war damage to a hereditament a proprietary interest therein is suoject to a settlement or is otherwise held in such manner that the owner of the interest would not be competent to give an effective discharge for the proceeds of a sale thereof, the right to receive any value payment or share of such a payment, or any payment under Section eleven of this Act in respect of that interest, shall vest and devolve as if, for the references in sections ten and eleven of this Act to the owner of a proprietary interest as the person to whom payment is to be made, there had been substituted references to the person compete.it to give an effective discharge for the proceeds of a sale thereof.
(2) If the right to receive a payment under this Part of this Act in respect of war damage, or a share of such a payment, is claimed by two or more persons adversely to each other, or the Commission are unable to ascertain in whom such a right is vested, or if it appears to the Commission to be expedient for them so to do in order to safeguard the rights of persons beneficially interested in any such payment or share or for any other special reason, they may make payment thereof to the proper officer of the Supreme Court or, if the a mount thereof does not exceed five pounds, of the county court, in accordance with rules of court.—[Captain Crookshank.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is to deal with what might arise under Clauses 10 and 11, in certain cases of land settlement, and is to make it clear that payment will come to the person who is normally entitled to receive capital moneys.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Rights enforceable not- withstanding transmission of interest.)

Where by the provisions of this Part of this Act or the Fifth Schedule thereto a right is conferred against or on any person on or against


the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or any other person, and is so conferred by virtue of the first mentioned person being at any date the owner of any interest, or the landlord, tenant or mortgagee of any such owner, the right shall be enforceable notwithstanding that the first mentioned person has, since that date, died or otherwise ceased to be the owner, or the landlord, tenant or mortgagee of the owner, of the interest in question.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
There are certain matters in the Bill in connection with contributions, and recoveries of contributions or parts of them, as to which people's rights fall to be determined on 1st January, though the actual liability is not enforceable till 1st July. The only purpose of the Clause is to clarify the position and to make it clear that liability attaches on 1st January and continues in the person who, on that date, is owner or mortgagee, et cetera, although he may die or cease to be the owner, as the case may be.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Recovery of instalments of contribution from mortgagees in possession.)

Where at the relevant date in any year—

(a) the proprietary interest in the whole of any contributory property; or
(b) if there is then subsisting in the property more than one such interest, that one of them which as between them carries the immediate right to possession of the whole of the property,
is subject to a mortgage, and under the mortgage the mortgagee is in possession of the property or the mortgagee or a receiver is in receipt of the whole of the rents and profits incident to the mortgaged interest, the instalment of contribution becoming due in that year in respect of the property shall he payable by the mortgagee, and—

(i) the mortgagee shall be entitled to the like rights against any landlord or tenant of the mortgagor, and against any other mortgagee of the interest, as the mortgagor would have had if the instalment had been payable by him, and
(ii) the amount of the instalment, reduced by the aggregate of any amounts which the mortgagee is entitled to recover by virtue of paragraph (i) of this Section and of any amount which the mortgagor would have been entitled by virtue of Section nineteen of this Act to recover from the mortgagee if

the instalment had been payable by the mortgagor, shall be treated, except for the purpose of computing what amount, if any, the mortgagor would have been entitled to recover as aforesaid in respect of the instalment in question, as an addition to the capital sum secured by the mortgage.—[Sir K. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause makes provision for recovering instalments of contribution. It provides that where a mortgagee is in possession of property and the mortgagor would otherwise have been liable to pay an instalment of the contribution, the mortgagee shall be responsible for paying the instalment. The mortgagee then has the mortgagor's rights for recovering the appropriate portion of the instalment from any landlord or tenant of the mortgagor.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Whereupon, the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Cornmissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1941.

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGE BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Deduction of indemni- ties for rent and mortgage payments.)

(1) Where a direct or indirect contributor in respect of a contributory property who is a tenant of the property or whose interest therein is subject to a mortgage is entitled to an indemnity under the Fifth Schedule to, or this Part of, this Act, from any person as being at the relevant date his landlord or mortgagee, he may, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, deduct the amount of the indemnity from any instalment of rent or any payment (whether of interest or capital) under the


mortgage, as the case may be, falling due to the said person on or after the date on which the contributor became entitled to the indemnity.
(2) Where, in accordance with subsection (1) of this section, any person makes a deduction from any instalment of rent or payment under a mortgage, so much of the instalment or payment as is represented by the deduction shall be treated as having been actually paid and the said person shall he acquitted and discharged thereof accordingly.—[Captain Crookshank.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
For this new Clause we are indebted to the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas), who called attention to the point. The Clause gives a statutory right to a tenant or mortgagor to deduct from his rent or mortgage payment any sum which he is entitled to recover from the landlord or the mortgagee. The second part of the Clause is necessary to make it clear that the income upon which the landlord or mortgagee is obliged to pay tax shall be the whole amount of his income, not the amount less the deduction. I should point out the importance of the words near the end of Sub-section (1). "falling due to the said person." The payments which the landlord or mortgagee is due to make are personal payments. It would not be possible to make the deduction from the subsequent owner or landlord or mortgagee, because the obligation would not be upon him but upon the original one.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Exclusion of certain goods from commodity insurance schemes.)

(1) Section eleven shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have effect, as if at the end of Sub-section (1) thereof there were inserted the following proviso—

'Provided that no goods shall be deemed to be insurable under this Part of this Act—

(a) in relation to any person, being the owner of the goods, who carries on business as a seller of goods unless they are owned by him with a view to being sold, or to being used as material for the production of goods to be sold, or as ingredients or component parts of goods to be sold;
(b) in relation to any person, being the owner of the goods, who carries on business as a supplier of goods, unless they are

owned by him with a view to being supplied for the purposes of or in pursuance of a contract made by him for work, labour and materials, or to being used as material for the production of goods to be supplied as aforesaid, or as ingredients or component parts of goods to be so supplied.'

(2) Nothing in Sub-section (1) of this Section shall be construed as limiting the power of the Board of Trade under Sub-section (4) of the said Section eleven by order to direct that goods of any description specified in the order shall he deemed not to be goods insurable under Part II of the War Risks Insurance Act, 1939.—[Mr. Lyttelton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It has always been accepted that the commodity insurance scheme should only cover stock in trade. In the course of the preparation of this Bill certain anomalies have been discovered. The object of this Clause is to exclude from insurance under the commodities scheme, for instance, the furniture of a furniture dealer in his office for use and not for sale.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Expenses of Public Works Loan Commissioners as mortgagees.)

Any expenses incurred by the Public Works Loan Commissioners in discharging any liability as mortgagees of a direct or indirect contributor shall be defraved out of moneys provided by Parliament.—[Sir K. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause makes provision for paying out of funds provided by Parliament for expenses incurred by the Public Works Loans Commissioners as mortgagees.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Set-off of certain pay- ments under Parts I and II against loans out of Vote of Credit.)

Where war damage has occurred to any building occupied, or plant or works used, for the purposes of an undertaking, and a loan either for the purpose of making good the damage, or partly for that purpose and partly for other purposes, has been made by a Minister of the Crown out of moneys provided


by Parliament to the person carrying on the undertaking, on the ground that, immediately before the occurrence of the damage, the undertaking was being carried on for purposes which, in the opinion of the said Minister, were essential to the efficient prosecution of any war in which His Majesty may be engaged, so much of any payment under Part I of this Act as consists of the proper cost of any works executed for the purpose of making good the damage or so much of any payment under the business scheme operated under Part II of this Act or any payment that the Board of Trade have decided to make under Section fifty of this Act, as is referable to the damage, may, notwithstanding anything in Section ten of this Act or in any policy of insurance issued in pursuance of the said scheme, in lieu of being paid by the Commission, or, as the case may be, by the Board of Trade, be discharged by crediting the appropriate amount to the person carrying on the undertaking in his account with the said Minister.—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is purely a machinery Clause. There are certain cases in which, for example, a munition factory has been damaged. A loan may be made by the Crown for the purpose of repairing the damage, and the Clause provides that, when subsequently the payment under this Bill becomes due, it can be discharged by writing off the appropriate amount of the loan.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application to Northern Ireland.)

(1) This Act shall extend to Northern Ireland subject to the modifications specified in the following provisions of this section.
(2) References to the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall he construed as references to that Act as it applies in Northern Ireland, and for the reference to the Reference Committees for England and Scotland there shall be substituted a reference to the Reference Committee for Northern Ireland.
(3) For any reference to money had and received to the use of His Majesty there shall be substituted a reference to a debt due to the Crown; and for any reference to the Rating and Valuation Acts, 1925 to 1940, there shall be substituted a reference to the Valuation Acts (Northern Ireland), 1852 to 1940.
(4) The reference in subsection (3) of section ten to the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act, 1939, shall be construed as a reference to any corresponding enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland for the time being in force.
(5) Section fourteen shall have effect as if the proviso to subsection (2) were omitted.

(6) The expression "net annual value" means the net annual value under the Valuation Acts (Northern Ireland), 1852 to 1940, and the net annual value shown in a provisional or revised valuation for the time being in force by virtue of any enactment pending the annual revision of valuation under the said Acts shall be deemed to be the net annual value shown in the valuation list.
(7) The expression "summary conviction" means conviction subject to, and in accordance with, the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, and any Act (including any Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland) amending that Act.
(8) The expression "Government Department" includes a department of the Government of Northern Ireland.
(9) Section twenty-five and the definition of "land" in subsection (1) of section forty-one shall have effect as if the Acts and the order therein respectively mentioned applied to Northern Ireland.
(10) Section thirty shall have effect as if—

(a) in subsection (3) the words "(other than the Public Health Act, 1875, or the Public Health Act, 1936)" were omitted; and
(b) for subsection (5) the following subsection were substituted:—


(5) In this section the expression "appropriate department" means—

(a) in relation to any railway, light railway, tramway, trolley-vehicle, sewerage, sewage disposal, refuse disposal or water undertaking, or to persons supplying water to the public as aforesaid, the Ministry of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland;
(b) in relation to any canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, quay, pier, gas, hydraulic power or electricity undertaking or to persons supplying gas to the public as aforesaid, the Ministry of Commerce for Northern Ireland;
(c) in relation to any lighthouse undertaking, the Minister of Shipping.

and the expression "drainage authority" means a county council acting as a drainage authority under the Drainage Acts (Northern Ireland), 1925 to 1935.

(11) Section thirty-six shall have effect as if for subsection (2) the following subsection were substituted:—

"(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of any instrument, capital money arising under the Settled Land Act, 1882, may be applied in or towards the discharge of any liability as, or as a mortgagee of, a direct or indirect contributor."

(12) Section forty-five shall have effect as if in subsections (2) and (4) for any reference to the net assessment of the farm for the purposes of Schedule A there were substituted a reference to the net annual value of the farm, and as if subsection (5) were omitted.
(13) Section sixty-five shall have effect as if for subsection (2) the following subsection were substituted—



"(2) The Commissioner of Valuation shall furnish the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or the Board of Trade with any such information relating to the valuation of land in Northern Ireland as the Commissioners or the Board may require for the purposes of this Act."

(14) Section sixty-eight shall have effect as if in subsection (1) for the reference to the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, there were substituted a reference to the Valuation Acts Amendment Act (Northern Ireland), 1932.—[Sir K. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the, First time.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause makes the necessary application of the Bill to Northern Ireland.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal in part of 2 and 3 Geo. 6. c. 32 (N.I.).)

(1) Sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section two of the Housing (Emergency Powers) Act (Northern Ireland), 1939 (which relate to the recovery of expenses incurred by local authorities in making fit for housing purposes buildings damaged by war), are hereby repealed.
(2) A charge to which any building has become subject by virtue of the said Sub-section (4) is hereby discharged.—[Sir K. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This and the following Clauses relating to Northern Ireland are for practically the same purpose.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 2 and 3 Geo. 6. c. 34 (N.I.).)

(1) Sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section two of the Essential Buildings and Plant (Repair of War Damage) Act (Northern Ireland), 1939, and Sub-section (3) of Section four of that Act (which relate respectively to the recovery of expenses incurred by local authorities in repairing buildings used for purposes essential to the welfare of the civil population that have been damaged by war, and to the recovery of loans made by the appropriate Ministry for the purpose of repairing any such building) are hereby repealed.
(2) A charge to which any building or premises has or have become subject by virtue of Sub-section (4) of the said Section two or of Sub-section (3) of the said Section four is hereby discharged.

(3) Where works have been executed by any person (whether that person is a local authority or not), being works for the purpose of the execution whereof a loan has been made to that person under Section one of the said Act by the appropriate Ministry, so much of any payment under this Part of this Act as consists of the proper cost of those works may, notwithstanding anything in Section ten of this Act be paid to the appropriate Ministry in discharge of the loan made by it.
(4) Where works have been executed by some person other than a local authority, being works for the purpose of the execution whereof there has been made to that person by a local authority a loan either under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section one of the said Act or in pursuance of a notice under paragraph (i) of Sub-section (4) of that Section, then—

(a) in a case in which there has been made to the local authority by the appropriate Ministry a loan, under paragraph (b) of the said Sub-section (3), of an equivalent amount, or under paragraph (ii) of the said Sub-section (4) of such amount as is necessary to enable the authority to comply with the notice, as the case may be, so much of any payment under this Part of this Act as consists of the proper cost of those works may, notwithstanding anything in Section ten of this Act, be paid to the appropriate Ministry which shall credit the appropriate amount to the authority in their account with the said Ministry in respect of that loan and the authority shall credit the like amount to the person who has executed the works in question in his acccunt with the authority in respect of the loan made by them;
(b) in any other case, so much of any such payment as aforesaid may, notwithstanding anything in Section ten of this Act, be paid to the local authority in discharge of the loan made by them.

(5) In this Section the expression ("the appropriate Ministry" has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of the Essential Buildings and Plant (Repair of War Damage) Act (Northern Ireland), 1939.—[Sir K. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Set off of certain pay- ments under Parts I and II against loans under s. 3 of 2 & 3 Geo. 6, c. 34 (N.I.).)

(1) Where there has been made by the appropriate Ministry a loan under section three of the Essential Buildings and Plant (Repair of War Damage) Act, (Northern Ireland), 1939, for the purpose of repairing or replacing any-plant used for the purposes of an undertaking; so much of any payment under Part I of this Act as consist of the proper cost of works executed for that purpose or so much of any payment under the business scheme operated under Part II of this Act, or of any payment that the Board of Trade have decided to make


under section fifty of this Act, as is referable to that plant, as the case may be, may, notwithstanding anything in section ten of this Act or in any policy of insurance issued in pursuance of the said scheme, be paid to the appropriate Ministry which shall credit the appropriate amount to the person carrying on the undertaking in his account with the said Ministry.
(2) In this section the expression "the appropriate Ministry" has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of the Essential Buildings and Plant (Repair of War Damage) Act (Northern Ireland), 1939.—[Sir K. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of Part III to Isle of Man.)

This Part of this Act shall extend to the Isle of man.—[Captain Crookshank.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is expressly desired to apply Part III to the Isle of Man. They do not wish Parts I and II to extend to the Isle of Man.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Insurance under Part II of War Risks Insurance Act, 1939, of certain goods.)

(1) After Sub-section (1) of Section seven there shall be inserted the following Subsection:

(1A) The commodity insurance scheme may also extend—

(a) to the undertaking by the Board of Trade, in relation to any person carrying on business in the United Kingdom as a seller or supplier of goods, of the liability of insuring such a person against King's enemy risks in respect of goods insurable under this part of this Act which are not owned by him, but in which he has an interest arising in the course of that business;
(b) without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (a) of this Sub-section, to the undertaking by the Board, in relation to a person carrying on any business in the United Kingdom, of the liability of insuring such a person against King's enemy risks in respect of—

(i) any goods situated in the United Kingdom which are in his possession, otherwise than under a hire-purchase agreement, for the purposes of that business:
(ii) any goods situated in the United Kingdom which are subject to a mortgage

in his favour held by him in the course of that business,

being in either case goods which are not owned by him but which are insurable under this Part of this Act in relation to the person by whom they are owned.

In this Sub-section the expression "hire purchase agreement" means a hire purchase agreement as defined by Section twenty-one of the Hire Purchase Act, 1938, or a contract to which the Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Act, 1932, applies, or would apply if the limitation as to value contained in Section one of that Act were omitted, and any agreements which for the purposes of the first mentioned Act would be treated as a single agreement made at any time shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a single agreement made at that time; and the expression "mortgage" does not include a floating charge, but subject as aforesaid, includes any charge or lien on any property for securing money or money's worth, and a right in security.

(2) Sub-section (4) of Section seven and Subsection (3) of Section fifteen shall cease to have effect.—[Captain Waterhouse.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is necessary because Clause 55 was withdrawn. There are no new points in it; these are merely drafting Amendments to make the original intention of the Clause more clear.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Liability of trustees, etc., in respect of instalments of con- tribution.)

(1) Where, in proceedings taken against any person for the enforcement of a personal liability as, or as a mortgagee of, a direct or indirect contributor in respect of an instalment of contribution becoming due in any year, the said person proves that the proprietary interest or, as the case may be, the mortgage of such an interest by virtue of which he incurred the liability was at the relevant date in that year vested in him as a trustee, and that his rights of indemnification out of the trust estate are, otherwise than by negligence or default on his part, insufficient to provide for his reimbursement in respect of the liability, the court may give such directions for the limitation or release of the liability as the court thinks just and equitable.

In this Sub-section any reference to a trustee includes a reference to a personal representative, and any reference to the trust estate shall be construed accordingly.

(2) Where at the relevant date in any year a proprietary interest, or a mortgage of such


an interest, in a contributory property is vested in any person as the trustee of the property of a bankrupt, any sum paid by that person in discharge of his liability as, or as a mortgagee of, a direct or indirect contributor in respect of the instalment of contribution becoming due in that year in respect of the contributory property shall be treated as part of the costs of administration of the property of the bankrupt.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Under the Bill liability may arise in a person in his capacity as a trustee. It was not clear that, under the Bill as drafted, that liability was restricted, as it should be, to the amount of the trust property which he holds as trustee. The first Sub-section of this Clause applies to that. The second Sub-section deals with the special case of a trustee in bankruptcy, and provides that any contribution for which a bankrupt's estate may be liable shall fall on the estate.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

The Chairman: The new Clause which stands on the Paper in the names of the hon. Members for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) and Hernsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) raises a matter which is an old friend but is not usually dealt with by a Clause in a Bill. It is a matter which was originally the subject of a Resolution by the House. If the hon. Member wishes to move it, for purposes of explanation, I have no objection.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Wages and conditions of persons employed consequent upon war damage.)

(1) All payments made by the Commission involving the employment of labour shall be made subject to the condition that the wages and conditions of employment of the persons employed shall, unless agreed upon by the employer and by organisations representative of the persons employed, or by a joint industrial council representing them, be not less favourable to the persons employed than the wages which would be payable, and the conditions which would have to be observed, under a contract which complied with the requirements of any resolution of the House of Commons for the time being in force applicable to contracts of Government Departments, and if any dispute arises as to what wages ought to be paid, or what conditions ought to be observed in accordance with this Section, it shall, if not otherwise disposed of, be referred by the Commission to the industrial court for settlement.

(2) Where any matter is referred to the industrial court under this Section, the court, in arriving at its decision, shall have regard to any determination that may be brought to its notice relating to the wages or conditions of service of persons employed in a capacity similar to that of the persons to whom the reference relates, being a determination contained in a decision of a joint industrial council, conciliation board or other similar body, or in an agreement between organisations representative of employers and workpeople.
(3) Where any award has been made by the industrial court upon a dispute referred to that court under this Section, then, as from the date of the award, or from such later date as the court may direct, it shall be an implied term of the contract between the employer and workers to whom the award applies that the rate of wages to be paid or the conditions of employment to be observed under the contract shall, until varied in accordance with the provisions of this Section, be in accordance with the award.—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I move this Clause in order to safeguard the principle of the Fair Wages Clause. In view of the fact that it has been agreed to by the House there is no need to argue the principle or the justice of it.

Sir K. Wood: The general principle of this new Clause, that wherever possible the Fair Wages Clause should be followed, is accepted by the Government. I intended to confer with my hon. Friend as to the exact form which this new Clause should take. I was not aware that this was a matter which had to be dealt with by Resolution only and I will, therefore, have to consult with you, Sir Dennis, and my hon. Friend. But whether it is done by Resolution or new Clause the principle is accepted. If we decide to proceed by way of a new Clause, I will suggest to my hon. Friend what he may like to put down for the Report stage.

Mr. Woodburn: I thank the Chancellor and accept his assurance and gladly take advantage of his offer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Restriction upon dis- closure of information.)

No information obtained by the Commission under Section thirty-nine (Power to Commission to obtain information) of this Act with respect to any proprietary interest or the identity or address of the owner of any such interest or of a mortgagee of any such interest or to any other fact referred to in that Section


or by a person authorised in that behalf by the Board of Trade under Section forty-six (Power of Board of Trade to obtain information) of this Act with respect to any business and the books accounts or other documents relating thereto shall (without the consent of the owner or mortgagee of the interest as the case may be or the person carrying on the business) be disclosed otherwise than in connection with the execution of this Act, and if any person discloses any such information in contravention of this Section he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine, or, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine.

Provided that nothing in this Section shall apply to the disclosure of any information in so far as it is required to be disclosed for the purpose of legal proceedings under this Act (including appeals to one of the panel of referees appointed under Part I of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910 and appeals to the Special Commissioners) or of any criminal proceedings which may be begun, whether by virtue of this Act or otherwise or for the purpose of any report of such proceedings as aforesaid.—[Brigadier-General Brown.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Brigadier-General Brown: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is usual in a Bill of this kind to have a Clause safeguarding business people from the disclosure of any confidential information. If any information comes to light which may prove injurious to the people concerned, I hope the Chancellor will see that it is not used.

Captain Crookshank: My right hon. Friend finds it very hard to believe that any kind of information connected with this Bill will result in a disclosure which might be dangerous, but as my hon. and gallant Friend has some fears that this may be so we are agreeable to accepting the principle and putting into the Bill some words to safeguard a hypothetical position.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty to apply money in defraying repairs.)

Where war damage occurs to any land, and any interest in the land belongs to an ecclesiastical corporation, the Ecclesiastical Com-

missioners or Queen Anne's Bounty may apply money or securities held by them respectively for the corporation in discharging the cost of any works executed as a matter of urgency for meeting the circumstances created by the damage.—[Sir G. Courthope.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
There is a number of trusts where Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners hold capital sums which they are restrained by existing Statute law from using except for definite capital purposes. This new Clause will enable these moneys to be used to effect urgent temporary repairs which may be essential before compensation is receivable or a permanent restoration is made. It will not deplete the funds because it can only be done in conjunction with the War Damage Commission, whose payment of compensation will restore the capital funds to their original position.

Sir K. Wood: I am prepared to accept this Clause, which I think is desirable and convenient. I want, however, to have it on record that it is understood that there is no intention of using this power unless the War Damage Commission approve, and that the authorities concerned will act in contact and cooperation with the War Damage Commission in this matter, as in other matters, in which both parties are concerned.

Sir G. Courthope: I am authorised to give that assurance on behalf of the bodies concerned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Compensation in re- spect of looting of chattels.)

Where, after damage by enemy action, further loss is incurred by looting, such further loss may be the subject of claim under the chattels scheme.—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I move this new Clause in order to obtain an explanation as to whether looting will be covered under the chattels scheme.

Captain Waterhouse: It is not the intention of the Government to include loss


from looting under the Bill. The Prime Minister, in his statement on which this Bill is based, used the following words:
Damage by enemy action stands on a different footing from any other kind of loss or damage, because the nation undertakes the task of defending the lives and property of its subjects and taxpayers against assaults from outside. Unless public opinion and the judgment of the House were prepared to separate damage resulting from the fire of the enemy from all those other forms of war loss, and unless the House was prepared to draw the distinction very sharply between war damage by bomb and shell and the other forms of loss which are incurred, we could not attempt to deal with this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th September, 1940, col. 42, vol. 365.]
We feel that looting, although clearly connected with war damage, does not follow directly or necessarily from war damage. No doubt the hon. Member read the other day that there has been less crime and that the prisons have been more empty since the beginning of the war than at any other time in recent history. I think that is the best answer to the suggestion that looting should be included under the Bill, and I hope the hon. Member will not press the Clause.

Mr. Woodburn: The only point that arises is whether local authorities would be responsible for any damage resulting from looting, in view of the fact that they had failed to protect people from that damage.

Captain Waterhouse: Although the local authorities have to do their best to prevent looting, in this particular respect the responsibility would have to rest on the individual.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Non-provided schools.)

(1) Where the managers of a public elementary school not provided by a local education authority have failed, for a period of fourteen days after any first day of July prescribed by subsections (1) and (2) of section fifteen of this Act, to pay such contribution as is required in respect of the school under the preceding provisions of this part of this Act, the local education authority for elementary education in the area in which the school is situated may, within twenty-eight days after receiving from the Board of Education a copy of the notification prescribed by subsection (3)

of this section, elect to pay the said contribution on behalf of the managers and in the event of their so doing the Commission shall pay to the authority all such sums as would otherwise have been payable to the managers under the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act in respect of war damage to the school.
(2) All sums paid to a local education authority for elementary education in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, other than such sums as are paid by way of interest in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of section nine of this Act, shall be expended by the authority in making good war damage to or replacing the school to which such first-mentioned sums relate, and the school or the building by which it is so replaced shall become, as from the date upon which the necessary works were commenced, a school provided by the authority within the meaning of the Education Act, 1921.
(3) For the purposes of this section it shall be the duty of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or of any person authorised by them to collect contributions under this Part of this Act, as the case may be, to send to the Board of Education an immediate notification of any case in which the managers of a public elementary school not provided by a local education authority have failed, for the period of fourteen days prescribed by subsection (1) of this section, to pay any contribution payable by them under the preceding provisions of Part I of this Act, and the Board shall forthwith send a copy of such notification to the local education authority for elementary education in the area in which the school is situated.—[Sir J. Lamb.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
A statement has been made in regard to non-provided schools, and I should like to say how much I appreciate the action taken. On behalf of those for whom I speak, we are very pleased with what has been done, but there is one particular point still left out. I have not put down an Amendment on this point because I received instructions too late. The owners of a non-provided school may possibly be unwilling to accept the payment offered by the Commission because with that payment goes the obligation to rebuild. The owners might say that the payment was insufficient to cover the cost of rebuilding and, therefore, they would refuse to accept the payment offered. I wish to ask that where owners of non-provided schools cannot see their way to accept the payment because of the obligation to rebuild, that payment should go to a local authority. Where owners do not


undertake to rebuild, the onus is transferred to the local authority to provide a school, and we consider that the money which the Government are willing to pay towards the provision of the rebuilding of a school should go to them.

Captain Crookshank: I do not think that the point made by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) is really raised in this new Clause. He asked a question which I thought I more or less dealt with at an earlier stage. I said then that payments which would be made in the case of non-provided schools would come within the discretionary payments of the War Damage Commission. These discretionary payments under the Bill have to be made after consultation—
with such persons or bodies as appear to them to be appropriate having regard to the nature of the purposes to which that interest is held.
That, of course, would primarily be the managers or whatever body was concerned with a non-provided school. The hon. Member raised the point that if that payment was such that it would he impossible to restore the non-provided school, he would like it to be made to the local education authority who have statutory duties with regard to the education of the area. The local education authority might not necessarily restore that particular school in order to carry out their functions, but they would have to see that education was adequately carried out in their area. I have said that I should have thought that in the general consultations "with such persons or bodies as appear to be appropriate," the War Damage Commission would surely have to bear a local education authority's responsibility to an area just as much in mind. The whole thing is part of the complex system of our educational affairs. It would necessarily follow, I should have thought, that they would consult both parties and make such discretionary payment as they thought fit, in order to carry out the purposes in view. I do not think I can take it any further—certainly not at this moment. We cannot accept this Clause—in any case we could not amend it—but I shall be glad to consider the matter further to see whether it is necessary to make it any clearer. I do not think it is necessary to make it clearer because I believe the words in the Bill cover the point which has been raised

and that they would have to consult everyone concerned.

Sir J. Lamb: In view of my right hon. Friend's undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I understand, Sir Dennis, that you intend to pass over the next two new Clauses. Would it be possible to allow one of them to be moved, in the possibility that the Chancellor might be able to make a statement which would be of interest to the Committee even though he could not accept the Clause?

The Chairman: I am afraid I cannot help the right hon. Gentleman. The Clause to which he refers is outside the scope of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Grants in aid of contributions.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, all contributions made by a local authority by virtue of the provisions of Part I or Part II of this Act shall, if such contributions relate either to land or to goods within the meaning of section forty-three of this Act acquired and held by the authority for any purpose in respect of which grants are payable out of moneys provided by Parliament, be deemed to be approved expenditure for that purpose, and grants out of moneys provided by Parliament shall be calculated and paid accordingly.
(2) This section shall not only apply to contributions made in respect of highways maintainable at the public expense.—[Sir J. Lamb.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The present custom, I understand, is that insurance premiums which are contracted with regard to grant-aided services by local authorities are allowed to rank for grant. I want to know whether that custom will be continued.

Sir K. Wood: I can give my hon. Friend the necessary assurance.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Constitution and Procedure of the War Damage Com- mission.)

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 52, line 8, at the end, to insert:


2. A vice-chairman may be appointed to preside over that part of the Commission which shall deal with claims arising in Scotland and which shall normally work in Scotland.
This procedure is taken from precedent, because in practice it has not been found possible to work a scheme of this kind where the law in Scotland materially differs from that in England by having a Commission sitting in London. Consultations that I have had convince me that the Commission itself will get into endless difficulties by trying to administer it from London. This Commission ought, therefore, to be divided. I move the Amendment in the hope that Scotland will have an administration of its own in this connection and that part of the Commission will have its seat in Scotland and work in conjunction with the other authorities there.

Sir K. Wood: When I dealt with the composition of the Commission I stated that it was my intention to appoint two members from Scotland. I intimated then that they would be able to deal especially with Scottish interests. I want to make it plain that these two members will be members of the Commission; they will not be, as it were, a separate Commission for Scotland, leaving the balance of the other members to be the Commission for this country. In the interests of the general procedure of the Commission, and of seeing that the general principles of the Measure are carried out, the Commission should be regarded as one. The idea is that these two representatives will investigate Scottish questions and cases on behalf of the Commission. After their investigation the matters will be decided by the Commission as a whole. In that way there would be uniformity of practice and an assurance that the general principles of the Bill are being carried out in both countries. I could not accept the conception of a vice-chairman for the particular purposes laid down in the Amendment, but if the Commission like to appoint a vice-chairman they are able to do so under the Bill. Another Amendment of the hon. Member refers to the appointment of a secretary, but the same answer applies there. I can see that there will be a Scottish office with officials and others who will specially concern themselves with Scottish business, but I do not conceive of a permanent secretary, in the sense of a

permanent secretary of one of the Departments, operating in Scotland. That is a matter which the Commission will have to decide in the light of their experience of the burden of work which falls on them.

Mr. Mathers: One recognises the validity of the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman, but may I ask whether it is not the intention that on occasions the Commission shall be in Scotland to deal with Scottish cases?

Sir K. Wood: Sir K. Wood indicated assent.

Mr. Mathers: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is under-estimating the difficulties of the two legal systems. Great ingenuity and great ability have been shown in blending provisions into one Bill so that both Scottish and English practice may be provided for, but I am rather sorry that the Chancellor does not see his way to concede what is asked for in this Amendment. I believe it would add to the effectiveness of the Commission from the Scottish point of view, and I believe it will be found, in practice, that what is asked for in this Amendment will have to be carried out. I am certain that it will be necessary for a chairman who thoroughly understands the position in Scotland and Scottish legal practice to be in charge of any investigation that is made on the other side of the border.

Sir H. Williams: We have heard about having a Scottish vice-chairman. I hope that the rest of the Commission will not be Scottish as well.

Mr. Benson: I realise that the Chancellor, faced with a solid phalanx of Scotsmen, had to do something, but I should like to point out that there are differences in practice, different forms of land tenure and different customs, in different parts of England. Anyone in Lancashire who has had to undertake conveyancing in which a London solicitor is involved just tears his hair. There ought to be someone on the Commission who is conversant with the local practices in the important areas in the North of England.

Mr. Woodburn: It is not necessarily a question of having Scotsmen to look after Scottish affairs, because, although it may be a surprise to the Committee, there are many Englishmen in Scotland who


administer Scottish affairs very well. The late Secretary of State for Scotland showed considerable ability in that office and he could be claimed by friends south of the Border to be an Englishman. The point here, however, is that those who administer this Measure in Scotland must be acquainted with Scottish law and able to handle these complicated problems in accordance with the law and customs of Scotland. I urge the Chancellor to reconsider whether what is suggested in my Amendment might not be the best way of accomplishing his object. The Amendment adopts the procedure of the Government in regard to another Commission, the name of which escapes me for the moment. As to the secretary, it is taken for granted that if somebody has to run an office in Scotland for the Commission it will be only fair to appoint a secretary there, but if he assures me that the Commission have powers to do so under the Bill as it stands I will willingly withdraw the Clause.

Sir K. Wood: This is very unusual work which the Commission will have to undertake, and I think it will be better for us to see how things turn out. I think the Commission have full powers already, but if it is found necessary to make some changes, I should act with a desire to see that the Commission had all the necessary powers. I think the business will work out all right.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major Milner: I beg to move, in page 52, line 14, to leave out paragraph 3.
I move this amendment in order to call attention to the increasing tendency in recent Acts of Parliament to debar Members of this House, not to mention Members of another place, from occupying positions on such a Commission as that which we are now setting up. This procedure originated in the days of Queen Anne, in 1707, when the Succession to the Crown Act made acceptance of office under the Crown a disqualification for membership. Latterly, a number of bodies have been set up under Acts of Parliament and are not, in strictness, under the Crown. It has become the practice in Acts of Parliament to debar Members of this House

from acceptance of positions on those bodies. That is an extension of the law of 1707 which, in my submission, is out-of-date and is not suitable to the present day.
In 1707, patronage was a very great thing and it was necessary to provide that the Executive should not have too much patronage, and certainly not secret patronage. The position to-day is entirely different. All these appointments are made in the light of day, and there seems to be no special reason for debarring Members of Parliament from acceptance of office, for example, on the proposed War Damage Commission. In these days, all should be able to pull their weight, not only in Parliament, but elsewhere, in any position in which their experience and knowledge would be of use. On the contrary, we see that, little by little, the ordinary Member is being more debarred. Nevetheless, one reads in the newspapers that special provision can be made. One reads that it is proposed to bring before this House a Bill whereby the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. M. MacDonald) may take the High Commissionership of Canada and yet retain his position in this House. It is possible, in what the Government consider to be appropriate cases, to make provision that acceptance of an office which may last for a long time and be carried on thousands of miles away from here, is not incompatible with membership of this House. On the other hand, one reads, as I did this morning, that another hon. Member has been appointed to be Governor of Burma, and will have to vacate his seat.
The situation is full of inconsistencies, and the Government ought to take it up. Members of this House can serve in the Army, the Navy or the Royal Air Force and can draw double salaries whereas, if I may say so without offence, the hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) is doing extremely useful work in connection with evacuation in London and is not, I think, in receipt of or entitled to take any salary for his work. That applies also, I think, to my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) who is filling a most important position connected with the Ministry of Supply, but is similarly not entitled to draw appropriate remuneration therefor. If those Members had no private


means they would not be able to give their effort and time to the service of the State and the existence of these provisions debar those without such means from doing outside work without remuneration. By the War Damage Bill Members will be debarred from sitting on the Commission but on the Forestry Commission, the Bacon Development Board and other Boards they are entitled to sit.
A precedent is therefore being set up, with all these new bodies which, in wartime, are more numerous than ever, that Members of this House should be debarred from appointment to them. That ought not to be the case, particularly in wartime. What a good thing it would be if the great majority of Members of this House were associated with definite work apart from membership of this House, in support of the war effort, and were able to bring their expert knowledge and experience to the service of the country and of the House. The practice of which I complain ought to be discontinued and, indeed, I should be prepared to do away with the Act of 1707. It does not necessarily ensure the right men getting the right position, and in these days it does not seem necessary to debar Members of this House from occupying positions of this sort. Contrary to the old days, all these matters are now dealt with in the light of day. Then again, some Members can occupy some positions while in other cases they cannot do so.

Sir H. Williams: I am going to oppose this Amendment for precisely the same reason as my hon. and gallant Friend moved it. I have with me a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT for the last Sitting Day, containing a list of members of His Majesty's Government. Seventy-one Members of this House are now Ministers of the Crown; if each has a Parliamentary Private Secretary, that makes 142. There are also two Ambassadors and one Commissioner. I am in favour of Queen Anne. We are getting on to dangerous ground when a quarter of this House is in the service of the Crown, and I hope that note will be taken of a situation which is developing unfavourably.

Mr. Mander: I hone that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not listen to the advice tendered by my hon. Friend. If he had his way, we

should all be not merely Members of Parliament, but members of the Civil Service too, drawing salaries from both sources, and I cannot help thinking that it would create an extremely unfavourable impression among the public in general if we were gradually to go on increasing the number of paid posts which Members of this House may accept. Recently, and notoriously in the last few days, there have been cases, some of which are regrettable, and I think we have gone too far in allowing Members to accept positions. But that is no reason why we should go still further and make that a justification for following the precedent and allowing Members to serve on this Commission. I am sure the public would not like it at all; they would take a very serious view of it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have nothing to do with it.

The Attorney-General: I propose to confine my remarks to a somewhat narrower issue than that which has been covered by the speeches to which we have listened. Quite apart from whether it would be right or wrong in war-time, it is relevant to point out that the activities of this body will certainly last after wartime. Therefore there is no question of what might or might not he justified in war-time. Another point which I hope the Committee, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment, will accept as another reason against the Amendment, is that this Commission will he charged with semi-judicial functions. In cases where judicial or semi-judicial functions arise it is desirable that hon. Members should debar ourselves from serving. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment suggested that there was some recent tendency to treat it as automatic. I do not think that is so. For example, in the Regional Commissioners Bill this House made the exception by which Members of this House were debarred from serving.

Major Milner: Having regard to what has been said, I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I think that there should be some consistency in this matter. At present the whole matter is inconsistent, and the situation puts those without private means and who cannot take an office without remuneration in an unsatisfactory position The tendency is for legislation to be directed


against those who have not the means to take office unless those means are provided from public funds. Having said that and ventilated the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to appeals under Part I to a Referee.)

Sir H. Williams: I beg to move, in page 53, line 5, to leave out from "shall" to the end of line 16, and to insert:
be subject to appeal to the High Court.
I always experience some little hesitation in moving Amendments of legal significance, but, on the other hand, it will be realised that the appeals in question are those which arise under Clauses 7 and 10. The questions at issue are sometimes questions of fact and sometimes questions of law, and I think the citizen ought to have the right if necessary to go to the High Court. I presume that one of the Law Officers of the Crown will reply to me and they will appreciate the significance of my Amendment perhaps even better than I do. It is important in these matters that as a last resort citizens should have the right to go to an independent tribunal like the High Court.

The Attorney-General: So far as questions of law are concerned, an appeal to the courts is provided by the Schedule. Any party who is not satisfied with the result of the determination as far as points of law are concerned may declare his dissatisfaction to the referee who has heard the appeal and may require him to state and sign a case. On questions of fact, I think on the whole we are better in leaving it to the referee. The general tendency of recent legislation over a fairly long period has been not to encourage appeals on questions of fact. Here the question will have been in effect through the hands of two disinterested bodies; the Commission will settle the values under Clauses 5 and 7 in the first instance and will have approached that task in an impartial and judicial spirit, and, when any one is dissatisfied, they can then go to the referee. There is thus already provision for an appeal, though not perhaps a technical appeal, on questions of value or fact. On questions of law there is already provision for appeal to the courts, and I therefore oppose this Amendment.

Sir H. Williams: In view of what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 53, line 13, to leave out from "or," to "of" in line 16.
This Amendment has the effect of making it possible to have these questions settled in the county court or, in Scotland, the sheriff's court. The sheriff's court, in Scotland especially, is the court of the people. It is a court which is easily accessible and in whose judgment the people have confidence. It is only in very serious cases that any appeal would be taken to the Court of Session or the High Court. Moreover, in Scotland in the sheriff's court a claimant can sue for any amount without limit. That, I think, is a point of difference from the county court in England. He can sue up to any limit in Scotland, and there is therefore no reason why, in Scotland especially, it should not be possible to have the questions of law decided first of all in the county court. It is obvious that serious cases might be taken from the county court to the High Court. If it is stipulated that, beyond £500, the matter must go to the High Court, that might cause great inconvenience and expense to some people. Obviously, few houses will be worth under £500. From the point of view of the appellants, of the legal profession, and of the present custom in Scotland, and, I daresay, to some extent, of that in England, I suggest that the case ought to be allowed to go first to the county court, and then, if so desired, to the High Court.

Mr. Mathers: We know how jealous the Court of Session is in Scotland about matters being taken outwith its powers, but we know also how very effectively and efficiently the sheriff courts in Scotland do their work. I have known of many cases where, although a judgment would normally have been appealed against, the fact that it had been given in the sheriff court, and the fact also that very high costs would he incurred in taking the matter to the Court of Session, led to the appeal being dropped. I am very conscious, and so, I am sure, is my hon. Friend, that in order to carry a Scottish point we are seeking to interfere with the


wording of the Schedule in its application to England. We do not wish to do that, and I would like to see some Amendment framed that would meet the case of Scotland without interfering with the county court and High Court practice on this side of the Border. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not turn the Amendment down because of its wording.

Sir K. Wood: I will gladly look into this matter. I am concerned only with maintaining the present practice so far as England is concerned. I will consult the Lord Advocate, and afterwards inform my hon. Friend about the Lord Advocate's opinion.

Mr. Barr: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when considering this matter with the Lord Advocate, bear in mind that it is a subject of considerable interest? I have had letters from societies of solicitors, representing that it would be a great inconvenience and a departure from Scottish practice if the words remain as they are.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE.—(War damage to a Hereditament the Site of which is to be acquired under Statutory Powers.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Denman: Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer any announcement to make about this Schedule? He told us at an earlier stage that it was going to be withdrawn.

Sir K. Wood: It will be, now.

Question put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Payments under Part I in cases of Repeated Damage.)

Amendments made:

In page 55, line 24, after "effect," insert:
both in relation to such temporary works as are therein mentioned, and also.

In line 29, leave out "and any temporary works payment."

In line 31, leave out from "but," to the end of line 34, and insert:
shall be taken into account in determining the amount, if any, to be paid under the preceding proviso."—[Sir K. Wood.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 55, line 42, at the end, to insert:
(d) if the title to the hereditament has altered as respects the proprietary interests subsisting therein, or as respects the ownership of the subsistence of a mortgage of any of those interests, between the earliest occasion and the subsequent occasion, the provisions of Part I of this Act, the operation of which depends upon those matters, shall have effect as if the damage had occurred on the subsequent occasion; and
(e) the interest on the single-value payment shall run from the subsequent occasion.
This Amendment deals with the case in which property, which has been once damaged, is transferred, and then, after the transfer, further damage takes place. It is impossible to dissociate the damage that took place on the first occasion from the damage which took place on the second. You therefore deem the damage to have taken place on the second occasion. That would produce no unfairness because the person who owned the property would have dealt with it under the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 56, line 15, at the end, insert:
with the substitution, for each reference to the subsequent occasion mentioned in that proviso, of a reference to such one of the occasions of damage taken into account under this paragraph as the Commission may determine."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Ultimate inndence of liability to contributions.)

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 57, line 6, after "property," to insert:
under a tenancy which has less than a hundred years to run.
This and the next two Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend have effect so that the landlord or tenant, who has a term of 100 years or more to run, shall bear no part of the contribution under Part I of the Bill. I think that that is a most reasonable proposition in the eyes of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Benson: Unquestionably this Amendment very radically improves the table in Part II of the Schedule, but I do not think it goes far enough to cover both the reversionary interest of the ground landlord and the immediate interest that he has in the value for the rent he receives. Broadly speaking, the


table is, I suppose, a reasonable approximation to that end, but there is the limiting case of the tenancy with 50 years or more to run, that is the 10 per cent., which can produce some very odd anomalies. There is a very large number of leasehold lands which are more or less nominal. It might have been found necessary, for various reasons, to lease land, although, in effect, the land had been sold. At 100 years the reversionary interest is very small. I find that at 4 per cent., which is a reasonable interest to take, the reversionary interest on £1 is .019, roughly a fiftieth. The reversionary interest is only one-fifth of the present value, and you may get a comparatively nominal rent with a large number of years to run—perhaps between 50 and 100—on a big building with a high rental, and you may find that the landlord, under this table in the Schedule, is paying three, four or five times as much as his total interest both on capital value and the rent he receives. I see that there is a proposal to extend the table. The table in the Schedule goes up by either five or 10 year jumps, and when it gets to the fiftieth year it goes up by 50 year jumps, and there ought to be a modification in order to prevent a man paying multiples of interest.

Mr. Radford: I am sorry that I cannot voice approval of my right hon. Friend's proposal. Where property stands on ground subject to ground rent the ground rent owner secures some security from the payment of contribution. If the property is destroyed there is some money forthcoming from general funds, and I do not see why, because a ground rent is for a period of over 100 years, the ground rent owner should not have to pay part of the contribution.

Sir Joseph Nall: It does seem altogether unreasonable that a ground landFord whose rent is secured by property liable to damage should make no contribution. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be aware that in parts of the country leasehold is resorted to very widely. Many properties are subject to sub-rents and it may be as many as 15 times over before you get back to the original owner. If none of them is to make any contribution, it is altogether unfair to the cheaper sub-rents, many of which are duplicated.

Mr. Douglas: I would like to support the arguments put forward by the last two speakers. If there were some assistance by which rents payable to a ground landlord should cease the position would be different, but at present he will remain entitled to his rent. In the particular case we are considering at the moment, it is obvious that the lessee cannot possibly disclaim his lease and so relieve himself of his obligation to pay rent, because the cases now under contemplation are those under which the lessee has, in all probability, a very substantial interest in the property, which he cannot disclaim. If the rent is to continue to be paid it seems only equitable that the receiver of that rent should make some contribution towards the cost of the scheme.

Mr. Woodburn: I am not familiar with the English terms concerning land, but there is considerable feeling in Scotland that the superior of the land is not being asked to make any contribution. It is said, of course, that he has no security over the property, but the fact is that agricultural land around towns, which was once being let at £2 10s. an acre, has now jumped to £45 an acre simply because the towns have built houses for the people, or, for instance, because the State, by providing a £5,000,000 road between Edinburgh and Glasgow, have raised the value of the land for letting purposes. These people receive a free gift from the State of about £42 10s. an acre, and yet, when a national crisis comes, they are asked to make no contribution. I do not know whether it is possible in a Bill of this sort to deal with such a matter, but I hope the Chancellor will take this point into serious consideration when he brings in the Budget and see that something is done to recover some of the public money that is given gratuitously to these people.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 57, line 17, after "tenant," insert:
under a tenancy which has less than a hundred years to run.

In line 33, leave out "the," and insert "that."

In line 36, leave out "thereof," and insert "of that fraction."

In page 58, line 12, leave out "first mentioned."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 58, to leave out line 24, and to insert:


"Less than 5 years.
97½ per cent.
95 per cent.
90 per cent.
85 per cent.


Less than 10 years.
95 per cent.
87½ per cent.
80 per cent.
70 percent."


In my view, the table included in the Amendment would be an improvement on the Bill. As it is rather difficult to argue this matter in detail, I think it better to leave the Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
As this is the last Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of a Private Member, may I, on my own behalf and on behalf of many other hon. Members who have had a good deal to do with the work in the Committee, express my appreciation of the friendly, reasonable, and receptive manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General have met the various Amendments that have been moved? Such a statement is one which in times of peace it might have been impolitic to make, even if it represented what one thought, but in these days we are able to express appreciation where appreciation is due. I feel that I must express sympathy with the Chancellor with regard to the many undertakings he has given to look into different matters, but I know he will honour those undertakings and really give consideration to those matters. It gives one great pleasure in these days to see democracy at work as it has been on this Measure, and I believe we have reason in general to be satisfied.

Sir K. Wood: I am indebted to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and the Committee for the way in which they have helped me with this I have given a number of undertakings and I shall endeavour, to the best of my ability, to carry them out. We shall have a very considerable amount of work to do on the Report stage, in view of the various Amendments and alterations which I shall suggest as a result of proposals that have been made from all parts of the Committee. We cannot wholly congratulate ourselves until we have achieved the end of the Report stage, but we are able to

say now that a great deal of concentrated and expert attention has been given to the Bill, and I am very much obliged to hon. Members for their assistance. There has been no question of any other motive than to obtain the best Bill we can. In the circumstances it has been a most difficult undertaking, and could not have been done but for the help and assistance of my hon. Friends from all quarters of the Committee. I thank them very much indeed for the progress which has been made. I shall be glad to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 58, line 37, first column, leave out, "years or more," and insert "or more, but less than 100, years."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments Repealed.)

Amendments made:

In page 59, line 4, in column 3, at the beginning, insert "In section seven, subsection (4)."

In line 17, at the end, add:


"Part II.


Northern Ireland enactments repealed.


Session and Chapter.
Short Title.
Extent of Repeal.


2 &amp; 3 Geo. 6 c. 32.
The Housing (Emergency Powers) Act (Northern Ireland), 1939.
In section two, subsections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5).


2 &amp; 3 Geo. 6 c. 34.
The Essential Buildings and Plant (Repair of War Damage) Act (Northern Ireland), 1939.
In section two, subsections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5); and in section four, subsection (3)."


—[Sir K. Wood.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon the Third Sitting Day after 16th February; and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — PEACE AIMS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Grimston.]

Mr. Mander: I desire to bring to the notice of the House the question of peace aims, as set out in particular in a Motion which I put on the Order Paper the other day. I raise this matter in the friendliest possible spirit towards the Government, and with a view to stimulating thought and discussion on the subject, and in view of the very widespread interest which I know exists in the country. The Prime Minister, in reply to a Question which I put to him yesterday on the subject, gave me the impression that he thought the Motion I had put down was not so very far off the mark. Indeed, if one examines the terms of that Motion, it will be seen that it involves something very like an unconditional surrender by the present regime. I fully believe that the Government realise the importance of this matter and that they intend at the moment they consider appropriate to make a declaration of some kind. We have heard all sorts of rumours for some time past about Cabinet subcommittees, and documents and pronouncements to be made, but nothing has happened. A good many weeks ago, statements were made by Ministers, high and low in the Government hierarchy, to the effect that statements would be made, and I think there was a general feeling, that probably during the month of January, something would come out. All I ask the Government to do is to realise the importance which is generally attached in the country to this question—1 appreciate that you can only make a pronouncement in the most general terms—and to make a statement to the world as soon as they feel that they can do it.
In the absence of a Government statement I am going to elaborate the various points in the Motion that I have put down. The first is
that in the opinion of this House the effective propagation of the Allied peace aims throughout the world would be a powerful weapon in assisting to win the war.
It is true that what we want to do is to win the war, and the only point in bringing forward a Motion of this kind to my mind is that it will be a powerful weapon in doing that, otherwise there would be no great point perhaps in

elaborating it. The war can only be won by a combination of three weapons, the pressure of the blockade, the superiority of air power when it comes in due course and the breaking down of morale inside the enemy countries by the exercise of the propaganda weapon. That will be the time when it will be possible for the British Army to play its part on the Continent, and to go there under comparatively easy conditions in view of the state of mind of the enemy, and to go without undue difficulty through present occupied countries, and I hope this time right on to Berlin. I hope the Allied Armies will be seen in the principal towns of Germany so that never again will they be able to say they were not really defeated. Let them see for themselves. I hope also that any peace terms ultimately signed will be signed by all the elements in Germany—Right, Left and Centre. Some of the signatures would be of very little value but I suggest that course because it would for ever prevent one particular section in Germany saying that it was the other people who made the peace and they had no responsibility. Let them all be made to accept responsibility for the terms when the time comes. We want to convey to the German people that it really is quite useless for them to go on, that they have nothing to fear, we are not going to make slaves of them as they would make slaves of us. They can carry on inside their own country leading a free life of their own. The only thing they will not be allowed to do is to start another war. Let me take the second point
that these terms should include the restoration of the freedom of all peoples overrun by Nazi or Fascist aggression during recent years.
It will be noted that I use the words freedom of the "peoples." I think those terms have already been declared by the late and the present Government and are generally accepted, but let us be quite clear about this. That does not necessarily mean that we should accept the old frontiers. We may or may not, but we are not committed to accepting the boundaries that existed at the outbreak of war. It means that Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, Norway, Holland, Belgium and France must have their freedom restored, that Abyssinia and Albania must have their freedom restored, and, above all, that the freedom and safety of Great Britain and


the British Empire shall be preserved from threat in future. Some people have written to me since my Motion was put down asking why I said nothing about Russia. The answer is that I am dealing with the present war and the enemies in the field against us, and that I am not proposing to initiate or to suggest that we should start another war.
The third point is
the provision of food to continental nations immediately enemy arms are laid down and occupied territory evacuated.
It is generally agreed that to people who are not having enough food the prospect of food would be a considerable attraction. The Government have already declared that they have something of the kind in mind. The terms are clear; the food would only be allowed when arms are laid down and the territories evacuated. One cannot imagine Hitler surviving such conditions. The next point is that there should be
no negotiations with the present regimes in Germany and Italy.
We have surely learnt the lesson of the past and realise that there is no use making an agreement with the gangsters, bullies and liars who are in power in Germany and Italy. Any negotiated peace with the present regimes does not interest me in the least. It would only be a short pause before the start of another war in which we should find ourselves in greater difficulties than ever. Another point is that there should be
opportunities for the German and Italian people to choose for themselves whatever form of self-government they think fit.
I am speaking of internal self-government and what is to happen inside those countries. I do not suggest that Germany and Italy—one thinks of Germany in particular—are to be free externally. It is obvious that for a long time to come there would have to be a measure of control externally. Steps would have to be taken to prevent any further act of aggression and there would have to be a long process of re-education. People of the mentality of the Nazis in Germany cannot be trusted for a long time to come until something has been done to alter their point of view.

Mr. Lipson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that after the war Germany will be allowed, if she desires, again to choose a Nazi Government and

that Italy will be allowed to choose a Fascist régime?

Mr. Mander: That is exactly the point to which I was coming. It has been put to me "Supposing under self-government Germany and Italy were to choose again their present régimes." There are two replies to that. First, it seems to me incredible that under normal conditions, in a calm and peaceful atmosphere, when people were free to think for themselves, they would deliberately choose—

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Grilmston.]

Mr. Mander: —to inflict upon themselves the dictatorship régime which they have at the present time.

Mr. Lipson: You take the risk.

Mr. Mander: Allow me to finish the argument. If they did, then I would say that they would be going back upon the very condition I have laid down, which is that they should be free to choose whatever form of self-government they want, and if they chose a form of dictatorship and rejected self-government, well then indeed they would have to be subjected to some form of control, internal as well as external. I hope I have made that point clear now.
It has been said by Sir Robert Vansittart in that famous "Black Record" of his that there have never been enough good Germans present at the right moment. That is perfectly true, and perhaps we have not always done all we could to encourage good Germans when democracy was functioning in Germany. But, quite apart from that, I would suggest that the best chance of increasing the numbers of good Germans there is to allow democratic institutions to flourish. That is the reason why that particular clause was put in. The next point is:
The setting up of a world organisation possessing such military force as will prevent further acts of aggression, with suitable machinery for the peaceful settlement of international disputes through conciliation or third-party judgment, and for the promotion of the economic unity of the world and the development of its resources for the benefit of all.


Here I put it that we must in future see that we have some reliable force operating behind the law. There are two lessons which I hope we have learned from the events of the last 20 years. One is that we in this country cannot isolate ourselves from events, from wars that go on in any other part of the world. We get involved, and very heavily involved in the long run. The other lesson is that we cannot depend on loose obligations, on mere verbiage, on words in treaties. One of the difficulties of the League of Nations was that the obligations were not sufficiently binding. In future there must be an arrangement between certain nations of the most binding and definite character, so that sanctions, whatever they may be, will be predictable and will be perfectly well known to any aggresor who is thinking of taking action.
The way of carrying out this organisation is purposely left vague, because there are many ideas on the subject. I do not think they are necessarily exclusive. I will make reference to two or three without coming to any conclusion about them. I really wanted to have a general debate on the subject. The first is that many people think that co-operation between the British Commonwealth of Nations and the United States, if that could be secured, would very effectively secure peace in the world. Then there is the, to me, attractive idea that you should take the British Commonwealth of Nations—which really, on its limited scale, embodies the sort of ideals for which we are fighting—and that you should add to the British Empire, by specific agreement between us and other nations, particularly the Allies fighting with us in this war, as many reliable and friendly people in different parts of the world as we can find. If the United States would be associated with that, I should think it would be a very powerful combination.
I know that the League of Nations is out of fashion at the moment—not that I think that there was anything wrong with it if it had been worked with a will—but there are many who think that you can have a reconstituted League, with the arrangement that the provision of force, so essential in securing the peace of the world, should be delegated to a certain limited number of great Powers, who would undertake, on behalf of the world, to perform the functions of policemen,

the other Powers, no doubt, playing their part and making their contributions, financially, in economic matters, and in other ways. Then there are the various methods of federalism, obviously desirable if any of them could be brought about, but very difficult to bring about. In this connection, one should take note of, and welcome, the steps taken by the Polish and Czecho-Slovak Governments, here and now, during the war, to bring about a federation between their two countries, which will come into operation in the future, and around which it is hoped there will be associated as many as possible of the other countries in that part of the world. My last point is:
the removal of unemployment, undernourishment, bad housing and the lack of educational opportunities so that all races and creeds may live together in peace, liberty and security, enjoying the good things of life, both spiritual and physical, and rendering service in return.
That, of course, embodies the idea of a better world which all of us wish to see after the war. But in order to get that better world, it is essential to have order and security. Only in such conditions can the free democratic nations work out for themselves, in their own institutions, the social reforms that they want to see put into effect. That is why it is so vital, above everything else, to establish peace.
I believe that the proposals which I have put forward embody the ideas of the great majority of people in this country—with certain reservations—because they are drawn in pretty wide terms. The Prime Minister told us the other day that he hoped that there would be some extension of national unity for a period, at any rate, after the war. I hope very much that, whatever happens in general, there will be a continuation of unity in regard to foreign policy. I hope that that will not merely be the case for the few years, but that we shall find it possible to agree on a permanent national foreign policy, which every party in this House will be able to Support, a policy fo which each party of the Right and Left can make its contribution. The Right Can make their contribution through their known greater interest in armaments and matters of that kind; the Left can make their contribution by their greater interest in universality, and if we can combine those two, and promote a permanent national foreign policy, I think we shall have taken the


most effective step that is open to us to ensure that what is now occurring in our midst and throughout the world shall never happen again.

Mr. Lipson: The speech of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has shown at least one thing. The lack of an authoritative statement of war aims by the Government does not prevent people talking about war aims or producing their own ideas as to what war aims should be, and I think the Government might very well ask themselves whether it would not be wiser to make their own statement of war aims so as not to encourage statements which might be represented as the views of the country when, in fact, we do not know what they are. Also, when a request is made—and I believe a request is made with considerable public support—for a statement of war aims, it is open to misinterpretation if no answer is given to that request. We can be quite sure that our enemies will be making the most of the fact that so far the British Government have refused to make a statement of war aims. I think we are all very anxious that our enemies should not be able to use that propaganda against us. I hope the Government will not underestimate the strength of public opinion in this country, in our Dominions and also in the United States of America, which believes that the time is approaching when the Government should make a statement as to its war aims, and believes that such a statement would really add very considerably to our war effort.
We have all rejoiced at the victories which have been won against the Italian armies, and we are hoping that that will lead to the overthrow by the Italian people of the Fascist régime, but I think that that overthrow is much more likely to be hastened if they can have some conception as to what is likely to be in store for them if they do take steps of that kind. So far as Italy is concerned, therefore, I would suggest that the question of a statement of our war aims with regard to her is a matter of very great relevance, and we all hope, too, that the time will not be very long postponed when we shall be able to achieve a victory over the German forces which will also make the oppressed people of Germany feel that there is some chance of

getting rid of the Nazi régime. This is a war of liberation. This is a war to liberate the peoples of the countries whom Hitler has enslaved, and also a war of liberation for the German people. I think, therefore, that we ought to be able to offer to the people of Germany, and the peoples of other countries, too, some kind of hope that if they do take their courage into their hands at the proper moment they have some kind of reasonable future. I would remind the House that the overthrow of Napoleon was brought about by the uprising of the people whom he had conquered, and I believe that in this connection history may very well repeat itself. I believe that this is a favourable time for the Government to give consideration to these matters, because there is in this country a greater national unity than there has been at any other period in recent times. We have an all-party Government, and I believe therefore that there is a better chance of arriving at a statement of war aims which would meet with general acceptance than if we were to await a time when, perhaps, national unity would not be so strong as it is at the moment.
Those who plead for a statement of war aims do ask that what they ask for shall not be misunderstood or misinterpreted. We are not asking for a definite statement about boundaries or anything of that kind. What we do ask is that the Government should be in a position to tell the people of this country, and indeed the peoples of the world, what ideas they have about the maintenance of a durable peace after this war is over. We want our people to feel that the Government are giving serious attention to this problem, which, I hope everybody will agree, is a vital problem, so that generation after generation the world shall not have to go through what some of us have had to go through twice in our lives.
I believe that it would inspire our people to continue to make whatever sacrifices are necessary and encourage our friends all over the world if the Government could give some indication as to what is in their minds in connection with this problem, that they were prepared to deal with those economic problems which, in the past, have been the contributing factors of war, and, lastly, what they have in mind with regard to the future of the people of this country. We have all


been proud of the way in which the people of this country have withstood the assaults of the enemy, and I think the least we can do is to see that those who survive after the war are given a reasonable standard of life worthy of the sacrilies they have made. For these reasons, I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to this request for a statement of war aims. I am not asking that they should make a declaration here and now, but rather that they should announce that it is their intention to give immediate consideration to this matter and promise a statement in the near future.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: In the absence of a reply from the Front Bench, which I personally should welcome, I would like to say a few words. We have had from the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and the hon. Member for Cheltenharn (Mr. Lipson) two very facile and perhaps, in some respects, moving speeches. But they are very facile, because I know of nothing easier than to talk in the way which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton has done, and lead up the path—up the garden path—emotionally unbalanced people who are always longing for some solution of the world's difficulties which, in 10,000 years, nobody has ever yet even nearly approached. Therefore, I profoundly deprecate what has been nut forward by the two previous speakers on this subject.
One or two points astonish me beyond measure One is this everlasting cry for a declaration of war aims. They have been declared over and over again in perfectly clear terms. The ultimatum presented to Germany gave the reasons why we entered the war. We were running a great deal of risk ourselves, and we set out to do what we could for other countries that had been overrun. That position stands at the present moment. All this talk about the marvels of perpetual peace are a waste of energy, and I very strongly suggest that people should be careful how they talk in that way. I should suppose that this is pretty nearly the first European war which has ever been waged, according to hon. Friends who have already spoken, with the idea of freeing the enemy from their own internal arrangements; but for years the

enemy have decided what they wanted to do. They have accepted their own Nazi regime, as it is called, and they have decided to go to war and to forget everything that came out of war. Wherever you look, in the Balkans and everywhere else, you see a solid and united enemy, determined on the prosecution of the war to the utmost limit and on the downfall of the British Empire. It astonishes me how people can suppose that the enemy have any other idea but that.
One other point remains. One is often told that the Versailles Treaty was a dreadfully harsh arrangement, but there are those of us who can remember 1914 and, as I can, 20 years before that, and who realise that the German nation was steadily building itself up into the position or an aggressive nation, determined upon getting all it could out of war. If one thinks for a moment of what the German nation was like in 1914, one remembers that it was wealthy beyond dreams, had a prestige of the very highest order and world-wide overseas possessions. Notwithstanding those facts, it prepared a tremendous war and forced upon a totally unprepared Europe that carefully prepared war. When I am asked to remember that the Versailles Treaty was not fair, I say: "Let us talk about 1914 and the years before that." I protest against this everlasting cry for a declaration of war aims, which has been made plain over and over again with absolute precision by His Majesty's Government. I would remind those who have just spoken that the Prime Minister said the other day that we must leave it to other agencies to provide a better heart in the human breast. Until a better human heart has been produced, all the talk and the idealism of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham are sheer waste of breath, and, I suggest, a waste of the time of this House.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has raised a very interesting subject and has put down a very interesting Motion. I think, though, his speech indicated that the setting out of peace aims is not quite so easy as some people think. I should say that the hon. Member was not altogether clear between peace aims, conditions of peace, terms of


peace and terms of armistice. When you try to write down peace aims, as I have tried to do, you find that you have to think a good deal. I do not think it is a thing that can be done in a moment. Remember, too, that it is one thing for private individuals to do so and another thing for a Government. A Government cannot be producing peace aims every fortnight or so. When you make a statement of peace aims it is on record, and therefore, it requires great consideration. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that a knowledge of the cause for which we are fighting is a vital weapon in this war, but that is not quite the same thing as a detailed picture of a post-war world. It is comparatively easy to lay down your peace aims in almost a sentence. Then you come to an intermediate stage when perhaps you can put down general principles. If you stop there the complaint will be that you are very vague. If you go beyond that you will find you are getting into details which you cannot have at this time, because you are trying to jug your hare before you have caught it.
The Government have stated that there will be a declaration at the right time. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton said quite rightly that it is a weapon of war. He thinks that it is the right time now.

Mr. Mander: Not necessarily.

Mr. Attlee: I think that the people who are taking the responsibility have to judge when the time is opportune. If I were to give the parallel of the Libyan campaign, a lot of people came to me and asked why

did we not attack. Of course, I could not tell them anything about it. I dare say that they thought that that was the right time. We did strike at what I think was the right time. I want to see that whatever we do in this direction is done at the right time. I am sure that there is a very wide and a growing agreement in this country as to the cause for which we stand. There is a growing understanding that we are fighting for a new world, not only for ourselves but for Europe and the civilised world. I think there is a growing realisation of the close link between our political aims and our economic aims. There is a growing appreciation, as expressed in a number of documents that I have seen, of the importance of bringing together our peace aims for the world outside this country and our peace aims for this country. It is one of the most encouraging things to find how this national unity in this war stress is expressing itself more and more in unity as to our peace aims and the realisation of the kind of life for which we stand—the kind of life which is being threatened by Hitler. Therefore, I do not at all dislike this matter being raised, in fact I like it, but remember, we want a statement made, when it is made, that will make for unity in this country, unity with the Dominions and with the United States Government, and unity with all the civilised people who are in the struggle with us. Therefore, it is a matter in which the right time must be chosen and the words must be chosen if we are to use them in the way they should be used, in order to bring about the end of the war and the establishment of peace.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.